Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFC to make FA leaders elected, not appointed

An RFC is underway to consider a proposal to make the Featured Article leadership elected.

TCO (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles in need of FAR

Hi everyone - Since the list on the FAR page is fairly short right now, I thought I'd go ahead and list some articles here that have had notifications of work needed in the past and now could stand to be listed on the FAR page:

All of these articles have had notifications of a possible FAR over the past couple of years, with little or no follow up. Everyone should feel free to either nom these or pick them up for cleanup work! Thanks to Brad101 for updating Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles, from which I compiled this list. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll nominate one article a week until I get tired or someone else wings in here. Or we could throw caution to the wind and do a nomination bombing. Brad (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it really fair to encourage people to nominate one of Bishonen' pages the day after she announces that she will be away with a health problem for some time? Even by FAR's standards that seems pretty low. Giacomo Returned 17:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Brad, I don't have a problem with you noming more often/once a week or so (unless the page starts getting backlogged with more than 20-25 noms; it's no-where near that right now, though). If other users have an issue with that course of action, though, they are encouraged to post here. Per Giano's comment, you may want to hold off a while on The Relapse, to see if Bishonen is able to come back. Giano, you make it sound like it was deliberate...many of these articles have editors that are away at the moment or have been for a while - hence the reason they have had work needed sections on the talk page go unanswered, in some cases for years, and hence why they are listed here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yom Kippur War. Talk page notice was given in May 2010 (now in talk archives). Skimming over the article I can see that it is in very bad condition. Promoted in 2005 it had a FAR in 2006 and can be listed for another FAR at anytime. Brad (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Nominated today. Brad (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR on auto-pilot

Could we please try to avoid "FAR noms on auto-pilot"? One of the aims of FAR is to improve articles when editors are willing to work on them, yet I'm seeing lots of vague nomination statements that don't engage WP:WIAFA with specificity and clear examples, to encourage article improvement. A driveby "this article needs FAR" without providing specifics isn't in the spirit of FAR-- some of the recent nominations include non-specific statements with no examples like:

  • Some very short paragraphs that also fall under 2b below. A general copyedit never hurts either.
    • Unless you can explain why the short paragraph is a problem, how do we know it is? Of course a general copyedit never hurts, but you shouldn't FAR an article unless you can identify specific prose issues and no one is working on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a few areas that are lacking citations. Several dead links.
    • Perhaps those areas don't require citation? Examples would help. Links go dead over time-- check archive.org-- that the links have gone dead doesn't mean the article has fallen out of compliance-- it means someone needs to update the links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Could use a bibliography section.
    • We don't prescribe citation methods, and bibliography sections aren't required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 1d and maybe 1e. Article was the subject of an arbitration ruling for edit warring and POV issues. While this issue may have come to an end it's possible that some of the warring and POV still remain in the article.
    • Maybe? It's possible? No-- demonstrate that the article fails 1e please if you want to FAR it on that basis. 1e by the way is greatly misunderstood-- we don't penalize articles because they are subject to edit or POV warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 2c There is little uniformity in citations. Full information of sources are missing.
    • Not a single example-- how does that help someone trying to improve the article.

This is an alarming trend, based on only glancing at the top of the FAR page-- one that I'd not like to see also take hold at FAC (if you oppose an article without specifics, I'll be likely to ignore the oppose unless someone else provides specifics and examples). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I raised this issue three months ago, but it hasn't been addressed. For example, a month later, on the Kolkata review, we find:

1a: The prose is in need of copyediting

without a single example. Nominators and reviewers here are not engaging WP:WIAFA with enough specificity for editors to know what improvements are needed, or in fact, for delegates to determine if statements are accurate. If a reviewer at FAC said, "Prose needs copyediting" without offering a single example, that would not be actionable. The nominator statement at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Héctor Lavoe/archive1 is pure conjecture, not a source supplied. If the FAR instructions aren't being followed, and if reviewers aren't engaging criteria, why are reviewers being allowed to put up more than one FAR at a time? We need valid FARs, with good rationale and explanations of work needed, to help encourage editors to engage to improve articles, or so that they can offer valid rationales for delisting articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You really don't understand FA editor retention do you? After a comment like I have yet to see a nomination from Brad that addresses WP:WIAFA I think you should start looking in a mirror after cleaning your glasses. That statement is completely false and unwarranted. Brad (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Examples above-- never addressed, ongoing. Additionally, for a reviewer to speak of FA writers like this indicates other issues that may need attention. So, here's what I'm asking:
  1. Don't put up another review until your current ones are in FARC.
  2. Stop making personal attacks and disparaging remarks on FA writers.
  3. When listing issues for FAR, please address WP:WIAFA with specific examples.
  4. When notifying article talk pages of FAR issues, also engage WP:WIAFA with specific examples.
One of the goals of FAR is to help improve articles, even if the star can't be saved, and neither improvement nor restoring of featured status can happen if we don't list the deficiencies and engage with editors to improve them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Francis Petre/archive1):

1c The obvious problem is the overall lack of citations throughout the article. The lack of citations leaves "well researched" and "high-quality and reliable" sources questionable.
2a Lead section lacks a lot of points raised later in the article body.
2c Lack of citations leaves this criteria open to later question.

All of this is speculative, nothing specific, no examples of problems; FARs like this should be questioned by the delegates, and enough specifics (including sources) to back assertions should be provided so that others can determine what work is needed and delegates can determine if WIAFA is engaged.. We don't FAR something because we think it might be questionable. There is very little actionable in this nomination statement, and yet the FAR was passed to FARC with no further followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This FAR however is an improvement: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katie Holmes/archive1. Specifics are listed, so I have now seen a FAR nom from Brad that does engage WIAFA. Much better.

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Transhumanism/archive1 (not a Brad nom) is also a deficient FAR declaration-- it is full of opinion, but no sources or examples of the alleged deficiencies. It would be helpful if the delegates would guide nominators towards engaging the criteria, and review the pages closely so that deficient noms are identified and removed: my concern is that the example set in earlier deficient nomination (including the failure to check for notifications, which should include all Projects) has been followed here, and folks aren't even noticing that nominations are not specifically engaging WIAFA, giving examples, sources that back assertions, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another sample: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Polish–Soviet War/archive1

  • Red links all over the place, particularly in the refs. These should be checked to see if any have article potential.
  • Red links are not a breach of WIAFA.
  • 1a TPH mentions several prose issues but the entire article suffers with prose problems. Thorough copyedit needed.
  • No samples.
  • 1c Is a major problem. Many citation needed tags, several paragraphs without citations and dead links. WP:NOENG should be followed.

  • Brad says: "Many citation needed tags". NO. There are 2 (dos, dwa, two, 1+.9999999999...) cn tag in the article currently. That's not many, that's something that can be easily fixed. Let's not have a replay of what happened at the Katyn massacre FAR. Please take some time before making comments here. Volunteer Marek  22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • 1d Seems to be a long standing problem with this article. Talk page threads are full of disputes.
  • According to Volunteer Mark on talk, all old disputes. No samples of current disputes given.

This is not the way to run FAR; folks, please get the nominators on board with how to list and nominate a FAR, and how to do it in less offensive ways. Specifics, sans hyperbole. Perhaps a review of some older FARs will help re-set the tone here. There are too may stalled FARs, running much longer than the previously too long of two months, and there are apparent issues here.

This is how a nomination should be written: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Azerbaijani people/archive1. Specifics, samples, and sans hyperbole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Updated

Getting messy up above here. Articles are in order of how old the notice is; old and really old at top and more recent at bottom. Brad (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What happens to a delisted article?

What happens to a delisted article? It becomes a good article or a normal one? ژیلبرت (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When an article is delisted, the article has all "class" status (Stub/Start/C/B/GA/A/FA) removed. The projects concerned with the article can then reassess at any level other than GA or FA. When an article becomes featured it loses its GA status, so does not return to GA status when it is defeatured. Dana boomer (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not agree with you. articles to become featured article should be good article at first. It means being good is pre step to being featured. Then coming a level back for a featured article lead it to be a good article.--عباس ☢ ✉ 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles do not have to become a GA first; it is perfectly valid to take an A class article to FAC without going through GA. I do not see why articles should lose their GA status if they have one, because the FAR process does not re-evaluate them on GA standards, but solely on FA standards. An article that fails at FAC does not lose its GA status. The GA review outcome. if there was one, should stand unless a GAR is carried out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Technically no article at FAR has GA status - this status is removed on promotion to FA, not demotion. I'm not sure myself why that is, but I do agree that GA is not a prereq to FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times in archives (please search them). GAN and FAC are community processes, and GA or FA status can only be conferred by going through those processes. Individual WikiProjects assess at other levels. Most articles that are de-featured no longer meet even GA criteria, so assessment is removed when an article is defeatured, and it is up to individual WikiProjects to re-assess (A, B, or C-class) and GA status can only be conferred by re-submitting the article to GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the leadership of the featured article process

An RfC on the leadership of the featured article process has been opened here; interested editors are invited to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Notifications

Folks, this is the second time I've visited a FAR to find that no notifications were done.[1] Here we have a FAR that could be moving to FARC, but no one checked notifications. I used to do that task here-- who is doing it? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Héctor Lavoe/archive1. How are we going to get Puerto Rican editors to work on this article if notifications aren't done, and why isn't someone checking notifications? Also, the nominator didn't address WP:WIAFA in his nomination statement, which is another trend I'm seeing here. This article needed a FAR, and I can give a list of reasons, but is someone reviewing the nominator declarations to make sure they speak to WIAFA, not just IDONTLIKEIT and ITHINKSOMETHINGMIGHTBEWRONGHERE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, it isn't necessary for nominators to state 1.a, 1.c, etc. The Lavoe nomination speaks mainly of comprehensiveness and neutrality, in my reading. The nominator posted to the article talk page, as required, about these issues and prose problems and got absolutely no response, and therefore brought it to FAR for further evaluation. That seems to be a very solid following of the nomination procedures to me. If others disagree with the nominator's opinion - well, that is what FAR is for... Dana boomer (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I notified additional WProjects tagged on the talk page (we really need to-- or at least we used to-- make a good effort to bring people in for article improvement, not just delist). Yes, we need specifics as to what is wrong with articles as relates to WIAFA-- otherwise folks don't know what needs to be fixed. That nomination statement is wholly deficient, and gives no guidance to anyone as to how to work on the article, and the nominator statement was based on opinion, and gave no sources. That wouldn't work at FAC, and shouldn't work at FAR. In the event someone shows up, I'll list the deficiencies as it should have been done. FAR is for saving as many stars as possible, improving as many articles as possible-- not just for running 'em through and delisting as many as possible. And you can't expect to bring people in to work on articles if you don't do notifications, and don't explain exactly what work is needed, per the criteria. The decline at FAR can be addressed by going back to the kind of work that was done here years ago. If you disagree with the FAR instructions that were established long ago, then please open an RFC to change them, but don't just ignore them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Certainly the impression I got when I tried to do some work on Simon Byrne at FAR was that the nominator simply wanted it delisted no matter what. That's why I've I've never been back since. Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's time to start changing that in here. Malleus, there are boatload of editors at work on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kolkata/archive1, and I've worked with several of them in the past. Dwaipayanc is competent, and Saravask has several FAs. It's not yet to the point of needing your expert eye, but I believe that FAR may result in a good outcome with some work. Would you be willing to look in on the prose in a week or so? In a few more days, it could also use scrutiny from Nikkimaria-- I'm picking up things in bits and pieces only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
To a large extent that depends on the outcome of the ArbCom case. There are several potential resolutions that would be completely unacceptable to me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, full circle to the Simon Byrne FAR, here is the precedent set by ArbCom; if there's anything different, they can write the articles themselves. Is not the enforcement of BLP policy on Wikipedia more important than policing "civility"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reaction to different aspects of the recent FAR disputes

Nom statement hurdle

I'm sympathetic to trying to save stars. For one thing...we should be working on getting more content created of a high value...not battles over old stuff. It's even just psychically better to help someone accomplish a star than to take one back that was granted before. Certainly more motivational.

I'm not into the per number stuff as much as Sandy. I prefer the "step back and think about the benefit to a reader" of Malleus. The number stuff feels slightly Wiki rule-gamey (we get criticized enough for the insane amount of policies and then how fluid they are and lacking in real world justification). That said, I DO ADVOCATE a thoughtful review that would give the major aspects to be worked on. And some feeling for extent (is it a 10 manhour job or 100 or 1000?). Not every single task, sure, but a work plan at conceptual design stage. In other words, a "real review"! And it's most efficient if done by the first person putting the thing into play. Not just have this as a place to throw a switch and start a process that consumes lots of time. I mean in the work world, someone calling a meeting may not be expected to have every thing planned...but should at least have enough to tee up to give others a structure to build on more easily.

Also, I think we need some difference in expectations. Even if we don't admit it because we want to have some lofty ideal that every FA is perfect, it only makes sense. IOW, we should not throw something in here if it is a tiny bit bad (or even passed, but an individual disagreed). We need some magnetic hysteris curve or we will continually be barely passing and barely demoting articles! We don't have time for that. So I am FINE that FA is hard (to pass) and FAR is hard (to fail). It makes sense from process efficiency.

Problems of the bad FA bank

That said, there are still some FAs from the pre-2008 quality increase that need to be purged. Things without modern standards on inline references or reference quality for instance. And some of the old FAs running on TFA have been embarressments...stuff that would no where NEAR pass an FA. (I did not like Peregrine Falcon when it ran, seemed subGA. The thing measurably improved while on the main page...but TFA should not be an improvement drive...or if it is...put important articles up.) I understand that Malleus did not like some very recent proposed TFA that had leaden prose. But we've had stuff much lower than that, just because it was old (and then that stuff never got checked or voted on at TFA btw!) That stuff just runs if in the bank...

We probably should just do FA sweeps since

  • (a) many articles are likely well short of expectations vice a small fix needed,
  • (b) nominators unlikely to be here to upgrade articles if very old,
  • (c) in many cases the articles are not that important (just some individual's whimsy, like a movie with 1 million gate or some obscure building...but not an article like Lion, and
  • (d) we can leverage the learnings from the GA sweep to be most efficient.

Even with sweeps, there is still a chance to save the article. Or to contest it. But it could be a cleaner way to take care of stuff than this super long process system here.

Social dynamics

Also, looking at this recent kerfuffle with Brad...it seems like a reprise of the 2007 debate where Sandy and Giano went to battle stations to protect a Bishonen FA. In that case, there were a lot of complaints about notification and a desire for more time to fix things. But after several months, the refs had not been added...and the article, which was substandard, was demoted by YM. I mean there was a huge flurry of talk page stuff and sturm and drang. But not pitching in and working on the article. Is that happening again? Anyone working on the article of concern? I feel like we are in a time warp...it is just uncanny how similar the dynamic.

I find Bishonen quite charming and pleasant in the few interactions I've had and I can understand that she is loved by her Wikicomrades. Really. I like her too! (Even Risker's electric company does power outages to send emails to protect Bishonen!  ;-)) But it is honestly a puzzle to a newbie why the place revolves so much around this axis. I mean Malleus I totally understand protecting (he rocks the content and does CE like crazy and works with new editors. He's amazing. The only thing I want is 10 of him...and I'm serious...it ought to be a leadership objective!) But the apparant Bisho clique is just honestly confusing. She is gone from FA work, right? Shouldn't we look to the future, not just old friends and enemies?

Something else I can't exactly express properly, but I have this thought. I think it might be more graceful for someone who used to be the leader (Sandy) here, to let the new leaders (Dana and Nikki) lead their way even if they are wrong. To give them space to set policy and such and not diminish their ability to lead. Like an ex-president of the US sort of staying out of the new guy's problems.

TCO (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that the Bish and Giano tag team antics were around long before I ever placed The Relapse for FAR. Anyone that cares to look at the topmost thread on this page can see that I delayed the FAR per reasons given by Giano. At the FAR for Francis Petre, Giano has refused to bring the article to standard which is only a matter of adding citations.
If I were Nikki and Dana I couldn't help but see the current rampage as a slap in the face to the effort they've put in here. The blatant hippocracy in complaining about editor retention and the lack of reviewers compared to incidents like we have here are just mind boggling. I noticed the heat turned way up after I put in my opinion that FA should have elections. Brad (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Speculation is free, boys ... it's the internet where anyone can say anything. But those who read will see that my "FAR on auto-pilot" section I started back in October had zero to do with Bish or Giano, and that my last two forays into FAR, where I found no notifications on FARs where I wanted to pitch in and help, likewise had nothing to do with Brad or Bish or Giano. But don't let facts get in your way now ... speculating is so much fun. Oh, but maybe not quite on in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to reaction post

Goodness, TCO, trying to decipher points for response from your walls of text is a challenge, so please clue me in if I've missed one:

  1. "More motivational": absolutely. If stars can be removed on a whim and based on grudges and every time the criteria tighten, there is no motivation for editors to pursue featured status anyway. As goes FAR, goes FAC. If we kick FA writers in the arse on the way out, for having written FAs when standards were different, they won't want to come in to begin with.
  2. "Not into the number stuff". No idea whatsoever what it is that you're referring to.
  3. How many person-hours will be required for the job? Irrelevant until or unless we change the stated purpose of FAR. As it stands now, if folks are willing to improve articles, we encourage it. The benefit of this is that no matter how many person hours it takes (and there are women in here too, you know, not just men), regardless if the article ultimately keeps its featured status, articles are improved-- and that should be our goal above ... ummm ... did someone call it "star collecting"?
  4. "Bad FA bank" does not extend only to pre-2008; there has been undue focus here (IMO) on a subset of articles, while some others that are much worse go unattended. As long as there's a hostile reviewer environment here, others will be reluctant to bring forward the honestly bad ones-- but having said that, neither should FAR be used to visit grudges (which we've seen in many cases). Go find the honestly truly out-of-compliance FAs, notify talk, and then start nomming them. With a list that is indicative enough of the problems that any editor-- whether they engage at FAR or come along long after an article is defeatured-- has an idea of where to begin improving the article.
  5. "TFA should not be an article improvement drive". The problem is bigger than that. Some articles do improve as a result of the extra attention of being TFA, but worse is that Raul tried to turn WP:TFA/R over to the community, and the community ran it down to nothing. (Can you think of anything that contributed to that, TCO?) Why were folks Supporting articles at TFA/R without even reading them? We have a forum there where the community can bring forward articles worthy of being TFA/R and review those that aren't-- but they didn't. So, IMO, this isn't a FAR problem, but a TFA/R problem, where some of us thought someone was watching that forum, but in fact, the community failed to pick up that ball. How about work to get that turned around? Saturn was alarming-- it was supported for TFA because of high page views (know any reasons that might have happened?), although it was in dismal shape (may still be for all I know-- haven't checked recently).
  6. "FA sweeps". Wrong on many levels, IMO. First, review the archives here for past discussions (yes, consensus can change, but I don't believe it has). See my point No. 1 above. If you can sweep 'em out, they won't want to come to begin with. It works for the GA process because one editor passes GAs. And the biggest argument, IMO, against sweeps is that when we had a huge change in criteria in 2005 (inline citations) that resulted in fully half of our then-FAs being out of compliance, we were able to save one-third of those. Had we done sweeps, we would have instantly reduced the number of FAs by 50%, offended a boatload of editors, and saved no stars. See WP:URFA for a summary of how long and hard we worked at those 523 FAs.
  7. "Reprise of 2007 kerfuffle"- wrong. Geogre didn't even try to hide his contempt for me, and I wasn't part of that. I don't think anyone who examines the evidence can make any sort of claim that the way Bish was chased off of Wiki by FAR is anything less than shameful, no matter what one thinks of Giano making a case for the sloppiness in some recent FAR noms.
  8. "Like an ex-president of the US sort of staying out of the new guy's problems", wrong again. No ex-president here ... I did much more work at FAR than FAC before I was a delegate, this is where I worked, and since 2008 I've had my arms folded seeing some of what has gone on here, unable to speak up since it's unfair to "work the equation" from both ends. It is no criticism of Nikki or Dana-- they weren't here back in 2007 and 2008, and if other editors are staying away in droves, it's not their fault. I have my own views about how this took hold, but even that happened before their time, since addressed by ArbCom. I can point out why that is happening, relative to what FAR was when had the monumental task before of us processing 523 FAs through here. There is no defense for what was done to Bishonen, and no reason to welcome reviewers here who call editors "witches" and "bitches". That said, if that behavior changes, I don't see anything preventing FAR from getting back to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Kolkata

Lots of work there, I've gone as far as I can, and it's ready for new eyes and Keep or Delist declarations: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kolkata/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Category

Is there a category that lists all FAs in need of review? Interchangeable 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. All articles currently up for review are listed on the main page for this talk page (WP:FAR). There is no category for articles that may possibly need to be put up for FAR. However, there is this cleanup listing (another form, organized by category of cleanup template, is here) which lists all featured articles with cleanup tags. There is also Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles, which lists some of the oldest featured articles, although it looks like it hasn't been updated in a few months. Listing on any of the above pages does not automatically mean the article should go to FAR - talk page notifications still need to be made, if the problems are major, or, in many cases, it is simply a matter of fixing dead links and other minor issues. I'm not sure if this answers your question - if not, could you please be more specific about exactly what you're looking for? Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Can articles classified as FA be edited? What does this do to the status of that article? Will a follow-up assessment of FA status be required? ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FA-class articles can and may be edited. However, major changes should be discussed on the talk page first. For the most part, edits to featured articles do nothing to change the status of the article, and do not require a re-assessment. Edits that result in instability, neutrality problems, sourcing problems, etc., can result in the article being reassessed, although edits that cause the latter two are also subject to simply being reverted. I hope this answers your questions - if not, could you point us to a specific article that you had in mind, if in fact you did? Dana boomer (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I refer to a comment made by a colleague on the Queluz National Palace. I volunteered to develop further history and content elaboration for this subject, owing to the lack of such material. I have a valid source for content improvements, but before extending myself into the editing (on my sandbox), I wanted to see what consequences existed. The subject was given FA status some time in 2008, and little has been significantly done to elaborate this content since. My colleague, rightly indicated that more detail was needed in the history side. But after reading the article, I suggest, that the tone of the article seems almost editorial, with little support from local sources. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
As long as your edits meet the general guidelines for sourcing, neutrality, WP:MOS, etc., there should be no consequences, other than the "consequence" of an improved article. I would suggest dropping a link to your sandbox on the article talk page, with a note that says you are working to expand the history section, so that interested editors can comment if they wish. Because it is a featured article, please double check that all of the sources you use meet the guidelines for reliable sources, self-published sources, primary sources, etc. (Not saying that you wouldn't anyway, it's just even more important to keep an eye on sourcing in featured articles.) Hope this helps, Dana boomer (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Former FAs that were GAs

Is the GA assessment still valid after an article is demoted from FA status? Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is an example of this. --Mika1h (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the article must stand again at GAN to regain GA. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup stats

Found this, thought people might be interested, includes last 2 years' worth of stats on no. of FAs that have cleanup tags [2]. The cleanup listing by count is here [3] (there's a problem with toolserver at the moment so hasn't been updated for 2 weeks). The number of articles that have tags has stayed the same but the number of FAs has increased so the % with tags has decreased which suggests we're making progress Tom B (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a very cool link! Thanks, Tom! Dana boomer (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I note that by far the most common issue is dead external links, which I suppose is good. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Featuring "old" FAs on Main Page

Text up to this timestamp moved here from Raul654's talk page. I wasn't aware he was on wikibreak when I posted there initially. --Dweller (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul

I have some concerns about TFA (Sarah Churchill), which I've begun to raise at the article talk page.

On the broader point, you know as well as I do the problems with older FAs and I think this one was promoted in 2007. With so many in our back catalogue that haven't yet featured, and new ones being starred on a regular basis, we're not short of material, even taking into account the fact that some authors understandably would rather their work didn't appear on Main Page.

I'm thinking about discussing an idea of introducing a protocol of not featuring any FA older than xxxx (?) unless/until it's gone through FARC since yyyy.

Is this a PEREN? Is it an irredeemably bad idea? Is there something there worth considering? (As an aside, I've not been involved in FARC for years, so I have no idea what things are like there at the moment, so this could be based on tremendous ignorance).

I'd like to hear your view (and those of any lurkers), before even considering floating this as a serious proposal somewhere in projectspace. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There may be some merit in your suggestion Dweller, but a large part of the problem IMO is the lack of warning given to the main editors that an article is scheduled to appear on the main page, allowing them time to look at it again and do any necessary tidying up. I think I was given one hour's warning of an imminent TFA the last couple of times, and in at least one case the article was already on the main page before I was notified. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that's a problem too. I've also had to jump to it in the past, with patchy results. We could attempt to tackle the problem from both ends... concentrate on the "better" FAs (because supply outstrips demand) and also work with Raul and Dabomb on a better system for creating the queue. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
TFA is scheduled until 20 October, calculate yourself. 7 days in advance is normal, 14 would be better. I notified the delegate and the request talk days ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes you did, but unfortunately the principal editor hasn't been very active for a while. I was making a general point though, nothing to do with this particular TFA. As it happens I don't see the issues raised with Sarah Churchill as being as significant as perhaps Dweller does, although they do need to be addressed nevertheless, which I've started to do. I'm unconvinced there's a general problem with older FAs that would justify the kind of restriction Dweller is suggesting, but it'll be interesting to see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair point, Malleus. It might be worth trawling through some of the other old timers and see if the problems are widespread. Is there a way to see or generate a list of current FAs by date of promotion? --Dweller (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There's the featured article log. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, but I don't think it's easy to see from that which are still featured. On reflection, I'm only that interested in ones that have yet to appear on Main Page, so I'll trawl that (much shorter) list. --Dweller (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
In fact, Sarah Churchill was selected by Dabomb87 on 5th October for appearance on 18th Oct and had been nominated as long ago as 12th September for that date. While I agree that early notification of a TFA selection is preferable, that's not the issue with Sarah Churchill's suitability. If there were problems, then the nominator and four supporters at TFAR didn't find them, nor Dabomb when scheduling, nor did anyone fix things before it appeared on the main page. BencherliteTalk 21:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Let's keep the two issues separate. While they both can lead to the same point (an 'unready' TFA), they have entirely different potential solutions and editors may differ on the extent to which each a) is a problem and b) can be solved. --Dweller (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
One thing that would help with older FAs is plenty of notice so the main authors can bring them up to current standards. A week doesn't help much if books have to be ordered from the library; even a month might not be long enough. Perhaps the TFA delegate could check the references section of an older FA s/he's thinking of scheduling, look to see how book heavy it is, and judge the length of notice accordingly. (This is a general point by the way, nothing to do with Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Old should not matter. What matters is if it meets modern FA standards. Many old FAs have been FAR'd due to lack of maintenance and the lower standards back in the early days.PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point. Old FAs won't have been assessed against modern FA standards. And many old ones, like today's one, haven't been through FARC... which is exactly why I'm suggesting that old ones should have to go through FARC before appearing on Main Page. --Dweller (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
They have, but not all old FAs are basket cases nonetheless. Dweller, I'm not sure that FAR would be an appropriate venue for all old (however that's defined) FAs, whether or not they're scheduled for the main page. Maybe those nominating/voting at TFAR should be encouraged to be little more proactive in dealing with issues such you found today?Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, they're definitely not all basket cases. --Dweller (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Raul scheduled one of my old FAs last year. I knew it wasn't quite up to snuff anymore (in fact, I had already planned on upgrading it). I immediately asked, and he agreed, to push the TFA date back a few days so I could go back and bring it to a more proper level. Ultimately, you don't need to force a FAR in these cases, but you do want someone to take a look before it hits the main page. Resolute 23:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Define "old FA"--that's an issue in and of itself. Auto-FARCing is an overreaction. Also, I totally agree with Mal's stmt about proper notice. TFAR is repeatedly weak in that area and proper notice would help a great deal.PumpkinSky talk 23:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on notice, but with due tipping of hat to the difficulties of scheduling. I'm not suggesting all old FAs should go to FAR - I was suggesting that before they're considered for Main Page they do. As for defining "old". On today's evidence, 2007 - possibly more recent. I'm going to have a squint through the list of articles that haven't yet featured over the next day or two and see what I can find. --Dweller (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I suspect one thing you may find is that a high proportion of the main authors are no longer with us, probably especially on the problemmatic ones. I think the worst/oldest cases have been FAR'd already, in large pushes that stopped when they ran out of "low-hanging fruit". Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, age of the FA is a factor, but as long as someone's made sure it's up to current FA standards, it should be fine. In the roads projects, we've sent Kansas Turnpike through another A-Class review to make sure it's up to the standard. I've kept California State Route 78 reasonably up to date, but it's showing its age and within the next month I'm hoping to go back and update it. --Rschen7754 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Another example: Derry City F.C. promoted June 2007, principal author left July 2007, three orange tags on the article for the last six months, a member of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from July 2007, poor prose (e.g. two "however"s in two sentences in the lead) and yet - despite me pointing all these problems out in my "oppose" at TFAR - it's been scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 24, 2012. As belt and braces, I have asked Lucky102 who nominated the article to clean it up and Dabomb to pull it, but anything we can do to sort out these problems before or during TFA nomination is a good idea. BencherliteTalk 08:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
When I've finished the audit (below) I plan to look at all the FAs from 2007 and earlier, and maybe 2008 too, and compile a list of those that are problematic in my opinion. Depending how many there are, there are various options for how to move forward. This will take some time. Perhaps in the meantime TFAR regulars should look more closely than usual at any "2008 or earlier" passes before accepting them. --Dweller (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
If the problems are pointed out at TFAR and they are still selected, the problem is not TFAR. Bencherlite[[User

talk:Bencherlite|Talk]] 08:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with Dweller's intent to make TFAs better, but I'm not sure FARCing them is the answer as FARC can take months, and we already have enough scheduling problems. The solution to that is have more people involved in scheduling and/or people who can devote more time to it. Agree 2007 is the bellweather year for FA standards.PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily, although there were changes to the criteria in 2007. There was a major change to sourcing standards (to using "high-quality" sources) in, I think, 2009, and regular spot checks for copyvio and verification purposes were implemented in 2010, IIRC. The last one in particular was a major change, and at FAR, we sometimes find major verification problems (and, less often, copyvio problems) in anything older than 2010. I also don't know that automatic FAR'ing is a good idea, as opposed to encouraging editors to take poor articles to FAR and perhaps run some kind of a check on older FARs (as there seems to be a push to do, below). We must also consider that FAR, as with many review processes, is perennially short of reviewers, and so we need to make sure that articles are sent through at a rate at which they can be properly reviewed. Tossing 50 articles in the queue at one time is not a good idea... Dana boomer (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I am misinterpeting this, but I absolutely oppose any FARs for this depending on the circumstances. Any FARs that come out of this should be reserved for serious cases (plagiarism). Any articles that should come out of this that just need to work to meet the WIAFA criteria could just be handled by a) Fixing it yourself, b) Asking the nominator to fix it up to meet the criteria. If necessary, a probationary period, maybe 3 months/90 days should be instituted. I don't want to go demote FAs en masse and not give opportunities to fix it up first. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 22:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're misinterpreting. I've proposed that FAs older than a certain age shouldn't be considered for Main Page unless/until they've had an FAR. That's not at all the same as saying that all old FAs should have an FAR. This should be clear in my original post at the top of this thread. Mass nominating at FAR would be destructive and would overload the system. --Dweller (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Audit

I'd like to look at this more carefully, so I've started a page in my userspace, where I'm going to note the date of promotion for all 1,330 Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page at this point in time. Anyone wishing to help out is welcome.

Do people think it'd be a useful addition to the Project page I nabbed the information from? It might help with trying to spot articles to nominate at TFAR, where, ironically for this discussion, older promotions are preferred. --Dweller (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've set a watch on your new page. I think this could meld well with WP:QAI, see the TFA section there especially. PumpkinSky talk 12:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

With some help from Bencherlite and Rschen7754, after a false-start, the page at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page is now well under way. With so many articles to vet, I'm running a fairly cursory eye over them, but so far it's been fairly easy to assess the suitability of the ones I've looked at. As I'm only going to look at articles promoted up to the end of 2008, I'll ignore any that have had an FAR - but only if it took place since 1 Jan 2009.

All and any help at that page is warmly welcomed, especially other people conducting simple reviews in a similar style. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Dweller, when you did this work, were you unaware of the listing at the top of this page? Date of promotion isn't a good indicator of the articles that are most in need of attention; I'm wondering why not just focus on the list we already have ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
All that list does is to collect categories which have resulted from various tags. It doesn't assess prose or unreferenced sections or anything that hasn't been tagged by someone. Dweller's approach is to perform simple reviews which would include those issues the page you've linked to highlight, but, much more importantly, prose etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, SG and TRM. I think that in addition to TRM's response, what I did and what that page does are coming from totally different angles. I wanted to see whether it was the case that "old" unreviewed FAs are unlikely to be of sufficient quality for Main Page. I think my hypothesis has been borne out. --Dweller (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't say that your hypothesis has been borne out; I suspect if you looked at new FAs you'd find similar percentages of problematic articles. The age of the FA is only one factor, and IMO, not even the most determining. We have newer FAs that shouldn't be; they are no more mainpage ready than some of the older ones identified. Your goal is a worthy one (to make sure we showcase our best work on the mainpage), but I think a more productive route to making that happen would be something that would get editors entering Support declarations at WP:TFAR to actually look at the articles and engage the criteria. I can think of half a dozen articles this month (or maybe six weeks) that have gone through that page and been chosen TFA as a result of that page that were ill-prepared. Supporters there either don't know or don't care or turn a blind eye as the page appears to be a popularity contest. If you really want to improve mainpage quality, there's the place to start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in the long term, the FAC process needs to be sorted out. In the short-to-medium term, where we're selecting from extant FAs, we have to do what's best with what we have, and that means auditing the content we promote. Hence Dweller's approach is, in the short-to-medium term, the correct approach. Changing the mentality at FAC is a long-term aspiration, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Yes. And we're coming full circle here... my audit was prompted by seeing an article on Main Page that I thought was in very poor condition, then noticed it was "old" and then...
While I think you're probably right that some articles slip through FAC currently that shouldn't, the old ones are extremely suspect because a) our standards (even if not applied consistently) have raised considerably and b) old articles degenerate over time unless they are tightly stewarded. --Dweller (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Same thing at FLC; one was flying through last month until I happened along, and if I hadn't looked, I'm sure it would have been promoted. Just checking that you're not thinking this is something unique to FAC-- happens elsewhere, too. We are only as good as our reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

30 Nov 2012

Today's FA, Youngstown, Ohio was promoted in 2007. It's on the front page despite the article itself referring to Youngstown 2010 as an upcoming urban regeneration project, so I suggest your efforts to check the quality of "old" FAs is most pressing. From a random ex-editor 90.245.14.139 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

oh noes ... the world will stop turning! Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Even TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Still a fair point that articles/lists etc that feature on the main page should be current, reasonably error-free and, wherever possible, up to current standards. Because TFA is generally listed one or two days in advance, sometimes it's just impossible to get decent re-review on those pages. Hence this issue I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This one was listed a week before, with notice [4]. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'm talking in general terms, that recently, TFAs haven't been listed until a day or so to go. This may be different, but nevertheless, it's interesting there's not a huge emphasis on quality control here either. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
well, yes, TRM, but Wikipedia is never finished and articles are never perfect. We want to encourage new editors to edit. Should we put a copyvio on the mainpage? NO. Should we put a BLP vio on the mainpage? NO. Should we make sure prose and citations are in reasonably decent shape, knowing that articles improve while they are on the mainpage and "anyone can edit" to do just that? Yes. But should we worry about a few "as of" dates on data that is two years old? Nope-- poor use of our increasingly limited resources. The idea that FAs need to be perfect before going on the mainpage (and the sequelae that the delegates are responsible when they're not) is just off. Having said that, well, sure, it would be nice if some of the folks supporting articles at TFAR would actually *read* the articles, but there doesn't seem to be any way to force a change in that culture. The folks who weigh in at TFAR want, indeed demand, a role in scheduling, but can't be troubled to read the articles-- the Youngstown article as at WP:TFAR for quite a while and got support. If editors there demand a TFA and won't exercise some responsibility over the quality, putting a burden on the delegates to make sure everything is up to a standard of perfection is too much. Particularly on Wikipedia where, fact is, no article is perfect. The IP registered a complaint about a fairly trivial matter. And, there will be circumstances even with three delegates where short notice might happen on a TFA; them's the breaks in a dynamic environment that depends on volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Most bold-linked articles (except those at POTD) are given a bit of a review. No reason why TFAs shouldn't have that level of scrutiny. As for scheduling, it really doesn't take a genius to list three or four articles in advance. Things have improved now Bencherlite is helping. You, Sandy, and others misunderstand what I'm looking for, it's not "perfection" as you claim, it's just that an article is up to date, has no maintenance tags, etc. Is that so much to ask? Maybe we're not putting enough effort into what appears on the mainpage any more, it's not just TFA. "a few "as of" dates...."? Honestly, if an article is two years out of date, it should not be our "finest work" and featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you can have better luck, then, than I've had in asking folks who "Support" at TFAR to actually read the article. The folks there want what they want, but they don't want to read the articles. How about going back at TFAR to figure out who supported the Youngstown article, and go direct this concern at them, rather than expecting the delegates to ignore what the community demands? Or ask that the rules are changed so that people supporting become responsible for checking quality? Would the delegates on their own be choosing poor articles? The community demands a role in scheduling, and then won't exercise that role responsibly. So it goes on the "project that anyone can edit". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No, again there's a misunderstanding, it's not about the delegates, it's about the quality control. The delegates have a lot to do, but if an article was scheduled early then it would get prominence and then get reviewed for quality. If delegates/directors at TFA made a concerted effort to get, say, a week or so of TFAs loaded in advance (not that big an ask) then we'd all know what we should be looking at. Then we'd have a week-long buffer to find any major issues. It's not rocket science. Sure I could go back and witch-hunt TFAR supporters, but that's a stupendous waste of time, as you already know. In brief, I think part of the role of the person scheduling anything or advocating anything for the main page should be a quick sanity check that the article isn't wildly out of date, tagged with maintenance labels, or dead links, or missing images etc. If we don't have the time to do that, then we need to rework how we put things on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point now. But I still disagree: I don't think scheduling a week, or even a month, in advance will make a bit of difference. People sqauwking about quality control are in fact doing nothing about it, and even overlooking problems in articles of their Wikiassociates. The people scheduling should not have the additional burden of checking every article: Wikpedia is not finished and is not perfect. If the community cares so much, why don't they check? I did check one, and weighed in on talk (an article proposed still now at TFAR that was awful), and all I got for it was shot at. I think your head and heart are in the right place, but the community is not going to do quality control no mattter how much advance notice the delegates give them, so putting that burden on the delegates is wrong. Let's see ... suppose FLC had seven articles a week, and the community demanded that you let them schedule a third of the slots and they want they want to heck with quality, they won't even read the articles: would you be able to keep up quality at that pace? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, isn't this discussion linked to Dweller's attempt above at revisiting the FAs languishing in the past that no-one has looked at lately with a view to reviewing them for currency, just in case they get picked out at TFA? Maybe I am being too optimistic. Once again, I'm _not_ looking for "perfection" and have stated such explicitly above (so your continual reference to Wikipedia being unfinished, imperfect etc is noted, but not helpful), I'm just looking for articles we claim to be our "best" and which we, as a community, feature on our main page with bold links and all, be better than the rest of of Wikipedia. I know it's a lame call, but at TFL, we review each list before scheduling it. We only have one per week, but we'd like to increase that. In any case, we'd like to continue the trend of ensuring the stuff we feature on the main page meets, at least, our own featured criteria. With the volumes of folks buzzing around FAC/TFA, that should also be possible for our featured articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A lot of that "volumes of folks buzzing aruond FAC/TFA" aren't actually doing squat, much less reviewing, much less engaging the standards, or doing that equally for all articles including their Wikifriends. I am trying to catch up on FAC (reviewing multiple every day), reviewed an FLC, and started reviewing TFARs to point out when they were deficient, and the one place I got screamed at for doing that was TFAR. So, where would you want to focus your efforts in that case? At FAC and FLC, my efforts have been worth the time invested. When we are short on reviewers everywhere, this will continue to be a problem ... but yes, it would be nice if any of the folks entering Support declarations at TFAR would actually review. I don't believe that will happen no matter how far in advance delegates schedule. So, if the delegates were not obliged to acquiesce to community demands, we could hold them responsible for quality. That is not the situation we have now; delegates have to schedule what the community demands. If you had the community scheduling the FLCs, you'd be in a similar spot. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, FLC is also guilty of having a section of the community who will generally support one another's work, and while we're getting more interest in reviewing FLCs, it's a somewhat false improvement. I also understand the screaming at TFARs, I frequently suggest FLs to be considered for demotion at FLRC, I'd say that 75% of the time this is met with hostility. But I have to persist with it so we don't run the risk of main page dross. As for delegates scheduling FLs, I'd love for that to happen if we had the need. One entry on the main page per week doesn't necessitate that. Maybe if we were to be allowed a more regular slot, things would be different....! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about copyvio in FA article history

"To Autumn" is a FA. The fourth highest contributor is User:Kathyrncelestewright, a sockpuppet of User:ItsLassieTime. Does this article need to be rev-del for those edits? Also, she contributed to FA "Ode on Indolence"? Do those edits need to be removed? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This question is related to Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Story of Miss Moppet/archive1 which is being considered for delisting because of a history of copyvio by sockpuppets of ItsLassieTime. e.g. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime 2 which includes Kathyrncelestewright. I confess I don't understand the various positions pro and con. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

FA referencing, references with a financial interest

Wonder if anyone can tell me what the position is on using references in FA articles from websites which offer for sale the subject of the article? For example an article on garibaldi biscuits which uses the website of a generic manufacturer of said biscuits to support an article claim that a famous chef said they were the best sort of biscuit in the world? Sandpiper (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be a questionable source, and could be grounds for opposition. DrKiernan (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it would, if such a stark situation should ever arise at FAC. Since Sandpiper has raised a similar point on the talkpage of The Rite of Spring, an article with which he is in dispute, I think what he really wants to know is whether it is OK for music articles to cite commercial sources such as Amazon, Presto Classical. etc. The view taken at FAC has always been that this is permissible, provided that such sources are only used to confirm the existence of a particular recording or recordings, and not to support any qualitative statement about a recording. This view has not to my knowledge been challenged at FAC, or anywaynot in the recent past. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

FAR delegate query

Dana and Nikkimaria, please review Talk:Stephen Hawking. The instructions here call for "three to six months" since promotion. It has been more than three months, but less than six, since the article was promoted. There are serious concerns, and the main contributor doesn't appear able to address them; would you be amenable to a FAR at this stage (that is, more than three, less than six)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sandy. I think an FAR could be opened so long as it's clear to all what FAR is for, and what we can't address. I'm seeing at that talk page that the original FAC nominator is amenable to an FAR, but seems to see it as a discussion about the "FA reviewing process", which can't happen effectively here. I'm also seeing a few interpersonal disputes stemming from the TFAR discussion. All that being said, though - if people are willing to work through the issues without a formal FAR, that would certainly be a positive outcome. (And given the holiday season, I'd be inclined to give a bit more time for informal work before coming here). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree on all of that ... I was thinking of after the holidays, unless progress is made. Thanks, Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Anybody home ?

I'm unsure what's happening here, but there are four nominations in the FAR phase that are past-due for a move to FARC. The FAR phase typically lasts two weeks; if sufficient progress is made, FARC may be avoided. If sufficient progress hasn't been made, articles move to FARC for further evaluation, where they may linger longer if progress is made. For some reason, almost every FAR and FARC on the page is stalled; I'm unclear why delegates are not moving and closing these nominations. There are many FAs that need evaluation; could we get this page moving on schedule? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday-related craziness of the past week or two is I suspect the main culprit, at least on my end. That should be back to normal shortly. There's also the issue of insufficient reviewer power, which is becoming an unfortunate constant around here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
How about pinging FAC and asking some folks to pop in? Almost every FAR on the page is straightforward-- a few more declarations ought to get the page moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you've done that - thank you, and hopefully it will bring positive results. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup, Christmas was crazy (as you can see, I made less than a dozen edits between the 14th and today!). I should be getting back into the swing of things this weekend, and definitely more after the first of the year. I'll take a look through the list this weekend, and see what there is that can be closed/moved. More reviewers is always a good thing, as Nikki says. Also, since the page is fairly small at the moment, I don't see a problem with putting up more of the FAs that need evaluation... Dana boomer (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/archive_11&oldid=1137412676"