Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Featured content dispatch workshop/Archive 3

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

Help needed on FP Dispatch[edit]

I just found about Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview since it wasn't mentioned here; we may be able to use it on December 8, depending on what happens with the WP:FCDW/December DYK contest (which looks like it's cancelled, but had been scheduled to run next). Help is needed to get the FP Dispatch in to shape: I'm finding it a bit hard to follow and the images are running off my screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We really need someone from FP over here. I'm reaching the end of what I can do as someone who has never participated in the process. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language featured content processes[edit]

I recall Sandy's mention a while ago that this would make a good Dispatch. I think it would make a good six or eight Dispatches. May I suggest an overview Dispatch first up, providing a bird's-eye view of just which WPs have which types of featured content, and basic information such as how these processes have grown, and when. Which ones have directors? How do the proportions of featured articles vs all articles compare?

Subsequent articles might deal with either particular WPs (French, Japanese) and/or particular types of featured-content process, such as FAC, FSC and FPC, comparing them among the languages. Another structure might be to compare the FA Criteria of a number of WPs (I wonder how much of a start one could make using a machine translator (Babel, etc), when the context is familiar). Other points of comparison might be the structures used in the processes, and the nature of the relationship between reviewers, nominators and (where they exist) directors. And we could locate one or two people from a number of foreign-language FACs who speak English, for interview.

Such a series of comparisons might be a valuable event in terms of creating linkages between the WPs, and to deepen our thinking about the English WP's featured content. Tony (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this dispatch has been started somewhere, and I agree with you that splitting it up would be a good idea. There is a lot of information in the draft version that I saw. As far as I know we haven't interviewed anyone yet, but I think that is an excellent idea. Does anyone have ideas for people to interview? Awadewit (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pieces that we have so far are at WP:FCDW/OtherWikis. (But we really need help in cleaning up and finishing Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview first; it's not yet ready to run. See section above.) On interviews, we'll need a year-end Dispatch on the 2008 top FA producers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 promotion data[edit]

(Awadewit, Cla68, Casliber and MikeChristie have already been interviewed, and HurricaneHink was interviewed for Featured lists.)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no overlap with the top three. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a draft at WP:FCDW/WBFAN2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pending[edit]

  • I've left a note on the talk page regarding Gin Lane. The error seems to have originated in the captioning for POD on Commons, but it would be nice to correct it. Yomanganitalk 20:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FCDW/OtherWikis – All of the basics are roughed in here to allow someone to write a summarizing overview of featured content on other language wikis (consolidating all of this info down to basics). I hope someone will take that on and begin a draft, perhaps for February publication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I need to do a 2008 FAC/FAR wrap up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for early February, Wikipedia:FCDW/AprilFools, for January 31. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really enjoying the interviews[edit]

Just wanted to drop a note off to say that I really enjoyed reading the Dispatches interviews this week. I was prompted to go and read some of the other ones as well, and thought it might help to have some collected together (not all here, but it is a start):

Thanks for all the work done on this week's interviews and on Dispatches in general. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Activity of content review processes in 2008[edit]

Hi all, I've compiled some statistics on how busy FAC, FLC, GAN and PR were in 2008. I've essentially tracked the number of open nominations on each of these pages throughout the year. Of course this is different from the throughput of these processes. I've started a draft at Wikipedia:FCDW/2008Activity with the graphs plus a few comments. I'll be adding more content soon. Comments/conclusions from people associated with any of these processes is more than welcome. If there are other 2008 statistics which would naturally fit in this sort of dispatch feel free to add them. Dr pda (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice; I'll look at it in a few days, when I have more time. (Yes, the rise in FACs open is due to lack of reviewers, which is a serious issue. I'm trying to leave them open unless issues are apparent, as it's not fair to close them just because FAC has been stalled since November with no one reviewing.) Thanks for taking that on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, was Sandy seriously just appointed at the beginning of the year as delegate? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 announced it on 26 November 2007, but I seem to recall there was some reason there was some reason that Sandy only started regularly closing FACs (on a daily basis!) at the beginning of 2008. Dr pda (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My first promotions were December 3, but I had a little detour thru ArbCom almost immediately and asked Raul to take over, then took a vacation to the mountains to recover from that pleasantry, so I didn't really start in until Jan 24. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since then I don't think I've seen Raul close anything :)... Not do diss Raul, but I'm happy you're running the show :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not running the show; I'm the delegate. Raul has closed quite a few, and he's always there for the hard ones when I punt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you forget this? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a first draft of the content to this dispatch. Comments/improvements welcome. Dr pda (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi, the participants at Template:In the news (ITN) were interested in doing a dispatch. How would this be done, and if so, could we have some guidance? SpencerT♦C 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the samples at {{FCDW}}, start a draft at WP:FCDW/ITN, and others will pitch in to copyedit or whatever once you're bulked in the content. Then we'll schedule it (scheduling is pretty open). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I'll start a draft maybe tomorrow and see if I can enlist the help of some of the ITN participants. SpencerT♦C 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun the page, which right now is a comination of the DYK dispatch and WP:ITNMP. It could use some cleanup, comments, and probably another section about items that have appeared on ITN. SpencerT♦C 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer, I'll look at this as soon as I get a free moment; is it possible to have it ready for January 31 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. I'll see if I can get more people over at ITN to check it out. SpencerT♦C 18:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good start; I added some inline queries, and it still needs a sample section (including a free image). It looks like we can run this on January 31, and then Wikipedia:FCDW/AprilFools on February 7. David Fuchs, how about the other language featured content for February 14 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, knew you would get around to asking me that :P It goes slowly, but that's because I was in the middle of an article overhaul. I'll finish it by the end of this week. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, can you aim to have it ready by Feb 4? I might not be able to edit between Feb 5 and 14. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, a better idea: we don't have to have a Dispatch every week, it's ok to skip one. We can skip Feb 14 and run it on Feb 21, so I'll be able to help with the final tweaks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't apply myself I'll never get it done, so I'll have it by the 1st and you can decide when you want to run it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pending[edit]

I may not have internet access to add the February 7 Dispatch at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, after the January 31 edition runs; in case I miss, can someone else please add it when the time comes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye aye. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured sounds[edit]

Featured sounds could use a new injection of people, and we haven't had an article since last May, since when the number of sounds have increased over 6 fold (or more, if you count each sound file individually) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it's at 97, so it's pretty much just about to hit 100 sounds, so can I claim next week? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Moved from main page: sorry for the delay, Wiki went down just as I was moving.) We have nothing currently on, so we can certainly run this next week if it's written in time. Please put a draft at WP:FCDW/FS so others can watch and pitch in. Hopefully, the new Dispatch will refer to but not entirely repeat Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-26/Dispatches. If you want it for next week, pls aim to have a working draft by Wed the 25th. (We've had a serious problem with people asking for a slot and then not completing the article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POST tip[edit]

SandyGeorgia left a link here suggesting that "one of you can write a Dispatch" concerning the promotion of the first all ships FT. I'd be happy to do that (if thats what the suggestion meant), but could someone link to a sample dispatch so I have some idea as to what you want done (assuming you want me to write it in the first place)? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the closest to your topic in way of a template would be these dispatches, "milestone"-based: Wikipedia:FCDW/April_14,_2008, Wikipedia:FCDW/May_19,_2008, Wikipedia:FCDW/September_1,_2008. A note is that it appears the last Featured Topic dispatch was Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 1, before the implementation of Good topics. Perhaps you can take about the changes that have gone on at FT (increased FA percentages, et al, formation of GT), as well as the milestone? I might be able to help write that out. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, all Dispatches are at {{FCDW}}; if you decide to do this, please start it at WP:FCDW/FTShip. If you chunk in the main text, others will help polish it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I will take a crack at it tomorrow and see what I can do. Thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rough draft is up. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it later tonight. Maralia (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I didn't see a story about this in the list, so maybe this isn't the best idea...here goes anyways. Have you guys thought about doing a story about DYKs that becoms FAs and FLs? A category system was implemented last year under Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles; I thought that it was kind of interesting. §hepTalk 06:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting, checking and review needed[edit]

I'm unsure why the Ship article was already scheduled at the Newsroom for March 2, when it isn't ready. Can others please help copyedit, check, re-organize and tweak these two drafts? Neither of them is yet at the typical standard for publication of the Dispatches, but it seems that one of them will run tomorrow:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on these as soon as I make it through my watchlist. Wanted to work on the Ships one last night, but the servers were all screwy. Maralia (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments on Geometry guy's talk. THANKS !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 16[edit]

We have nothing in the works for March 16, in case anyone has an idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FCDW/OtherLanguageWikis is in need of a lookover, but it's available. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to do much more work on that, from the original notes at Wikipedia:FCDW/OtherWikis. Supposedly a lot of editors were interested, but it hasn't happened. We may want to take a week off, until some other things are generated (I have several on the backburner, and we don't have to have a Dispatch every week, particularly with the overall downturn in editing and lack of interest in editing, in favor of dramafests and complaints everywhere, that is occurring throughout Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can just write a dispatch reading "START EDITING THE ENCYCLOPEDIA YOU DAFT PRICKS". --Laser brain (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sums it up pretty well :))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about something on plagiarism? I'm finding that it is rampant at DYK. Nearly every day I check hooks there, I find plagiarism. It is a sad state of affairs, frankly. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism at DYK is a long-standing concern and a serious one; if anyone is willing to write a Dispatch on that, it would be outstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely start working on one. A question I have - should I link to examples? The examples would have the unfortunate effect of highlighting plagiarizing editors. Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
eek, tough call, hard to say. Perhaps add them, and you can always delete if it doesn't read well? But it is a serious problem over there, and a light really should be shone on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You could pluck plagiarized passages from articles and compare to the source text, but not reveal the article's name. That may or may not work, depending on the passage's content. Frankly, I'm more worried about the numerous breaches of an overlooked yet very important policy. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm much at a loss for doing more on the OtherLanguageWikis, what were your other ideas on the backburner, Sandy? We could start shaping them up. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due tomorrow, March 16[edit]

I put a very rough outline in place, would appreciate more eyes. Wikipedia:FCDW/FACFARdelegates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine, my only question is whether or not User:Joelr31 is still doing FAR (he's never mentioned after his initial appointment at FAR.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is as of today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind Raul cleared it all up on the page. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism pending[edit]

New FAC rollout[edit]

FLC suggestion[edit]

There are several proposed changes at FLC - criteria changes, new delegate, etc. - so maybe we could do a dispatch on it some time next month? -- Scorpion0422 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a combined Dispatch on criteria changes at FLC and FAC? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine considering I'm not sure how much we could really fill up with the FAC changes alone. Where do you want the temp? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although all the technical jargon sure filled it, looking at the above. Why not spread our dispatch wealth? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a separate Dispatch on FLC issues. If Scorpion or someone wants to write it, how about WP:FCDW/FLCChanges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure, I can do it. There is still ongoing discussion, so I'll start in a week or so when things settle down. -- Scorpion0422 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Would you start it at the link I gave above, and be sure to work in the past related stories:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we plan this for the 27th, aiming to have a draft a week before, and mostly finished draft by the 24th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued pictures[edit]

Wikipedia:FCDW/ValuedPictures - still a bit rough, targeting the 20th. MER-C 03:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good start; can we have a commitment for the 20th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have the free time. MER-C 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really enjoying the interviews[edit]

Just wanted to drop a note off to say that I really enjoyed reading the Dispatches interviews this week. I was prompted to go and read some of the other ones as well, and thought it might help to have some collected together (not all here, but it is a start):

Thanks for all the work done on this week's interviews and on Dispatches in general. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pending[edit]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

landmarks[edit]

Not sure where to place this, but WP:Bird now has 50 featured articles and a square 100 Recognised thingies (made up of a further 34 Good Articles and 16 Featured Lists). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, would you be interested in writing a brief Dispatch? It doesn't have to be long, and if you just chunk in some text, others can take it from there. If so, please use WP:FCDW/Birds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, when I get some time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, WP:SOLAR also just reached its 50 FA milestone... is there anyway Ruslik or one of the other users from our project could write in the same dispatch? ceranthor 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group interview[edit]

Just an idea, but maybe we could do a group interview with the directors/leaders of the various processes? It could be interesting to compare and contrast their views on various things. We could have Raul and/or Sandy, Matthewedwards for FL, Arctic.gnome and/or Rst20xx for FT/GT, MER-C and/or Wadester16 for Featured Pictures, Cirt and/or OhanaUnited for Featured Portals, X! and/or Shoemaker's Holiday for Featured Sounds. -- Scorpion0422 00:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting in theory, but what would we really ask them? I mean, I'm sure a lot of their answers would be the same (more writers/more reviewers/et al) :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MilHist article for the Signpost?[edit]

I'd like to write one article (or perhaps two shorter ones, unsure) on the unique position of WP in relation to the gathering and presentation of military history. But not until the middle of the year at least. Tony (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audio and video editing[edit]

I've just started learning how to edit audio and video clips for Wikipedia. Eesh! A little introductory tutorial in a dispatch would have been helpful! I'm not volunteering to write these, as I'm a newb, but perhaps we could find some experts? Awadewit (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask Shoemaker's Holiday with respect to sounds. MER-C 04:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absence[edit]

I'll be out for a few weeks in case anyone else wants to shepherd through any Dispatches; instructions are on the main page here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-12/Dispatches just showed up on the Signpost, in case any other participants here want to give it a look over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review vs. FAC[edit]

Are there any editors who might be willing to take on this project? Peer review is being used less and less, and most WP:FACs are turning into long discussions of technical items that should have been covered at peer review, while review of substantial items at FAC is lacking. A Dispatch to encourage better use of peer review, and more participation there for articles heading towards FAC, might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in September I started User:Ruhrfisch/Dispatch. Finetooth and I have done some work on it, but it has been very slow and needs a lot more work. Brianboulton also said he could contribute (the three of us do the most PRs each month). Is this something like what you were thinking of? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good start, but we need more. All of those technical items that keep appearing at FAC, and chunking up the pages, should be handled at peer review. Dabs, Wikilinking, correct formatting of citations, alt text, image compliance, reliable sources, etc. And, we need to encourage more use of peer review for these items, as we did back in WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008; we somehow need to get more FAC reviewers engaged at the PR level, perhaps some structural changes at PR to indicate which articles are headed to FAC might be considered ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of 56 current FACs, 30 received a peer review. Of those that didn't, six had Class-A reviews from MilHist and 13 had been through GA, leaving seven that came to FAC without prior review. The trouble is, in few cases did any of these prior reviews deal with the technical issues. As a regular and (mainly) conscientious peer reviewer I have to admit that I tend to leave these, and concentrate on content and prose. If I were to review all the technical issues as well, that would take longer and fewer reviews would be done; the same is true for the other PR regulars. So we need more PR regulars, but the question as always is, how do we get them? How do we persuade people to devote significant time to what is a pretty unglamorous and often disdained process?
Another factor for consideration is the extent to which editors are increasingly ignoring the requirement that they should ensure that their nominations meet the FA criteria before bringing them to FAC. There will always be bits and pieces overlooked - the odd ndash, misplaced comma etc - and a degree of latitude should be permitted but, it seems, many editors are either ignorant of the requirements or are just happy to pass this responsibility to FAC reviewers. I positively groan when certain editors' nominations appear on the page because I know they have paid little or no regard to the process, and that their nominations will last for weeks, draining reviewer time and effort away from more deserving cases. The FA delegates do a terrific job but if (heaven forbid) I were one, I might be a little less tolerant towards certain nominations. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your analysis (but in the absence of Opposes, I have to be tolerant even of those nominations :) This Dispatch needs to 1) encourage more peer reviewers, 2) encourage more review of technical items at peer review, and 3) encourage some FAC nominators to make better use of peer review. We all know which FACs come to FAC prepared, and they get quick support with relatively short FAC pages-- the problem is, how to get others to come equally prepared so we can cut down on the volume of technical issues being raised at FAC. It might be helpful to find a structural way to identify PRs that are FAC bound, so we can assure technical items get more review there. We also might need to encourage more Opposes on ill-prepared FACs, so that Karanacs and I are able to close them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always wondered why FAC did not have a quick fail option like GAN does. Perhaps if two editors agreed it was a quick fail...? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a "quick fail"-- it happens when numerous reviewers oppose !!! Which isn't happening ... We don't call them "fails", but if four or five reviewers put up actionable opposes, or back each other on those opposes, I can archive in a few days. If reviewers don't use the Oppose button, there's nothing I can do, and I'm tiring of closing reviews with no feedback. An additional and ongoing concern at FAC is the number of reviewers who Support while ignoring Ealdgyth's diligence in higlighting iffy or questionable sources. We need more substantial reviews at FAC of prose, WP:V, WP:NPOV and comprehensiveness, and to encourage more review of technical items at peer review. Could the Featured article tools be included in every peer review, as they are at FAC? What is the status on AndyZ's peer review script at PR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're really seeing is not so much that "technical" issues aren't being addressed beforehand, but that "non-technical" issues aren't receiving the same level of attention at FAC. "Technical" issues can generally be reviewed more quickly, require less underlying education/experience (relative to, say, comprehensiveness) and are more black and white (i.e. less likely to result in argument). I suspect that if prose and comprehensiveness were being reviewed as thoroughly as the "technical" aspects, we'd be seeing many more 1A and 1B comments. It's human nature; people are strapped for time, so they do what they can and they don't want to venture out of "comfort zones" (i.e. discussing comprehensiveness of a topic on which they have little, if any, knowledge). There are also aspects of FAC bringing this on itself (such as adding the ALT requirement, which I find an absurd addition) and "technical" reviewers setting forth issues that have no actual foundation in WIAFA. The need for better prepared articles is a good topic to discuss, but the separation of "technical" issues seems unnecessary and, frankly, the above phrasing almost suggests they are a nuisance and less important (a criterion is a criterion is a criterion). Эlcobbola talk 18:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ec, you are correct, and I didn't intend to leave the impression that these other issues are insignificant-- just wish more of them could be dealt with via peer review. These long FACs are giving the impression that articles are getting reviewed, when content review is lacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal pet peeve is typos in FACs. The number of articles I review that have multiple typos hiding in the text amazes me. It makes me feel like people don't even read what they're about to nominate, and it frustrates me to see it time and time again. Things like typos and basic grammar errors shouldn't make it to FAC, but I can understand why PR doesn't catch them. The best peer reviewers look at an article as a whole, which is great for finding content issues etc., but the downside is that it leaves the technical stuff to FAC. I don't see how this is going to change as long as us reviewers are stretched too far between content process reviews and real life activities. And yes, content review is frequently lacking, but don't underestimate the article topics themselves as a cause; how many of us are really knowledgeable in what articles on South Park episodes or football stadiums should contain? It seems like either everybody or nobody has an opinion on an article's content, without much in-between. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since October, every peer review has tools similar to the FAC tools (these include AndyZ's PR script, which is not in FAC, but do not include the edit counter). AndyZ has not been on Wikipedia for over a year. No one is regularly maintiaining his script, though it has had some updates made to it. I think it would be a great idea if there were some way of indicating on the PR what the goal is, though many people already say this. I see several differences between PR and FAC. In PR, I see the focus as pointing out problems, but not necessarily fixing them. In a PR I will try to point out examples of all the problems, but not every single example. The nominators also seem to feel less of a need to respond - many PRs do not have a response on the PR page while it is open, though the editors may make changes during that time. PR is also not on a deadline - some nominators will give a goal (FA or GA or just improvement) and some will also give a deadline (more likely for those looking to submit to FAC or GAN).
It often seems that editors have unrealistic expectations about the amount of work and level of attention to detail needed for a successful FAC. If this Dispatch were a detailed checklist of what is needed, would that help? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before this thread gets too diverse, let's remind ourselves of the central issues: too much review work is being done at FAC that ought to be done at peer review; too many articles are being nominated at FAC before steps have been taken to ensure they meet all the FA criteria. Any solution to problem no. 1 requires more active reviewers at PR; how do we get them? Can reviewers at FAC who specialise in technical aspects be persuaded to do their work at PR (or will they simply decline)? Can other reviewers be asked to make a commitment to review x articles a week or month at PR (I got regularly involved in PR through such a request)? Other tweaks to the PR and FAC processes may be necessary and desirable, but will be ineffective unless we get the bodies. As to problem no. 2, that's tough - there are arrogant people out there who will always game the system and get away with it. All I can suggest is that the responsibilies of FAC nominators be redrawn in unequivocal terms: "If you have any doubts as to whether an article is ready for featured article review, DO NOT NOMINATE IT until you are satisfied that it meets all the Featured Article criteria" - or some such. That won't faze the pachyderms, but it might make a few others stop and think. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to also apologize for appearing to minimize the importance of what I called the technical aspects; after all, we do have an image policy, and this work is ALL important!!! My use of the word technical is to distinguish review of content from other review, and to help us find a way to write a Dispatch, or change something, to encourage better prepared nominations at FAC and more focus on content at FAC. I've also got something kicking around in my brain that may allow Karanacs and me to overlook supports that don't take into account Ealdgyth's sourcing reviews; I'll think more on it and propose it at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three of us who have been doing most of the peer reviews in recent months (and Ruhrfisch for much longer than that) are familiar with all aspects of FAC, and our reviews generally reflect this. We routinely give advice related to all of the FA criteria, and we routinely neglect nothing. For that reason, I don't think that a change in PR methods or emphasis will solve the problems at FAC. Having more reviewers either at PR or FAC would help, and more opposes at FAC would help. I have never opposed anything at FAC, preferring instead to encourage nominators to fix things. Some of them just don't (can't or won't), and I should probably modify my FAC methods. Finetooth (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone intended to say the problems were at PR; the goal here is to write a Dispatch that will encourage more reviewers at PR, and better prepared FACs. FACs that have gotten by Ruhrfisch, Dincher and Finetooth usually sail through :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is for reviewers to do a quick assessment of the extent of the shortfall in their area(s) of specialisation, and if this is beyond what can be dealt with in a short/reasonable amount of time/space at the review page, to simply do what I do: Oppose, review a portion in detail, and say "please go through the whole thing in this way".
Otherwise, FAC becomes an easy substitute for PR and GA, our reviewers become overworked, the list becomes long and clogged, and delegates and nominators frustrated. Tony (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) I worry that it is difficult to oppose at FAC. I usually say "Comment", but this past year I opposed as there were serious issues with not using the most recent scholarly sources enough in the article. The problem was that afterwards, the nominator (who withdrew the FAC) made what I felt were passive-agressive comments on my talk page and that of the other person who opposed for the same reason, then made comments that were less veiled on the nominator's own talk page. It was unpleasant. Not sure how to change that sort of thing, especially with a Dispatch on PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell us if you receive aggressive posts. Tony (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how much it would help, but reminding people that raising issues is about the article and not them is always sound advice. I know when I was a relatively new guy I made some not-so-nice comments to Tony... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refocusing on the Peer Review Dispatch[edit]

Would it make sense for the Dispatch to focus on all the things that should be in an FAC? Almost a checklist to get ready for FAC / list of common errors? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be ... link to the old Dispatch, include elements of your new one, and write everything a reviewer needs to know to get engaged at PR, including technical issues (link also to old reviewing Dispatch and the two image review Dispatches). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think what might help is to make a list of everything that should be in the checklist / this Dispatch. I am about to call it a night - will think about it and try to add some tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to a talk page, and I'll help out as I find time. Thanks, Ruhrfisch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having finally wrapped my head around some geology, I made a start at a list at User talk:Ruhrfisch/Dispatch. Good night! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers in 2009[edit]

Hi all, I have compiled some statistics about the number of reviewers in the various content review process. I've put the draft of a Dispatch about these, plus the annual "number of FAs promoted" etc at Wikipedia:FCDW/Reviewers. Any comments on the content, format or conclusions gratefully received. I was thinking of having this ready for the February 15 edition of the Signpost. Dr pda (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh my gosh, I love the Doc. But I'm too tired to look now, or tomorrow. I hope Karanacs can take a peek sooner than I can. You're great !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr pda, that's a wonderful analysis! I read through and couldn't think of anything to change. Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr pda, are you going to handle getting it into the Signpost? I'll be traveling and won't be able to do the followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great (and rather depressing, at the same time)! I've moved it into place for today's upcoming issue; I notice it was dated in the commented-out footer for next week, but it's in good shape for this week I think. Let me know if you'd rather postpone it.--ragesoss (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it going in today's issue, now that people have had a look at it. Dr pda (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a great report and a worrying result - I can't help but think that this situation might be better if the WikiCup offered points for reviews at FAC/FAR/FLC/FLR/GAN/PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can post this to those places ... I don't have time ... I also noticed y'all weren't wikilinked in the article, but don't have time. Kudos to those three of you and Ealdgyth for holding down the fort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the PR reviewers names per your suggestion, thanks. I also posted my idea on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Thanks to you and Karanacs for all you do (and Raul too). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps[edit]

Would an article on the completion of GA sweeps be in the purview of FCDW? (There are a few more articles on hold, but everything is now under review and should be done by the end of the month.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. You writing? WP:FCDW/GASweeps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. I'll ask Neh or anyone interested to chime in too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like Nehrams is fine with what we've got... where do we punt it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like everyone has been through and reviewed it now: can you add it to the Signpost page (see the instructions on the main page here-- I'm on dialup). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple upcoming Dispatches in the works[edit]

This is woefully late, but Dispatch regulars may be interested in two upcoming Dispatches:

Still could use some work, I'll try and comb over what I know for issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony moved the 3,000th FA into another area, so it appears we won't have a Dispatch on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The tools dispatch has been split; one ran in the September 6 edition, and the other will run in the September 13 edition. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interest?[edit]

I've removed long uninvolved members; will editors please add or removed themselves from the member list to indicate interest in continuing this Workshop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted the page to Signpost specs. Just curious, but wouldn't it be a good idea to put this under the Newsroom? ResMar 02:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review Dispatch[edit]

Hi, it says "coordinated from the FCDW". Is this happening? Input would be welcome, in addition to the good work done by the co-authors. Needs to be be shorter, snappier, less negative (I've changed the title). Copy-edit required. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-18/Dispatches Tony (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started this Dispatch back in September 2009 and discussed the idea on this talk page (see "Peer review vs. FAC" section, above). Finetooth and I wrote aboiut half of it and then it sat for many months, during which time the Dispatches became more or less inactive. Resident Mario (ResMar) saw that we had worked on this, contacted us about it, and so we finished it. ResMar has handled everything else in terms of getting it scheduled for the Signpost, moving it here, etc.
Between us, Finetooth and I have done over 1700 peer reviews. Every problem we point out is one we have seen scores or even hundreds of times. If not corrected, these problems will sink an article at GAN or FAC. Too many of them in an article will lead to a quick fail - how is pointing this out negative? The goal is to help editors avoid these common problems. The original title was "Common problems seen in Peer review", but Tony has changed it to "Peer review: tips for preparation" which seems much less informative to me. As for the length, there have been other Dispatches which are much longer, so I am not sure why this needs to be shortened, or what to cut. Perhaps Tony has some concrete suggestions? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Common issues seen in Peer review" or perhaps "How to improve an article: tips from Peer review" as titles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ruhrfisch. I'm not seeing the problems you are seeing, Tony. Concrete suggestions would be helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nominations changes / Review Guide[edit]

Discussion here, draft is at User:Wizardman/Signpost. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism & copyvio[edit]

Users still watching this page might be interested in this draft for a dispatch on plagiarism and copyright violations. Some discussion is here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is still watching this page, for reasons that need not detain us here. If you want to assure a Dispatch of the previous quality, I suggest someone ping in all of the editors who contributed to the first Plagiarism Dispatch-- that's how we used to do things here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that I am nobody. Always wondered who nobody was. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so am I :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can form a nobody club (just PLEASE don't use that song for the club). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me, link to songs on Wiki? Never! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the act of looking at the article to get the link correct has caused the very thing I had hoped to avoid; a certain song is now going through my head. In German the phrase for a song that you can't get out of your head is Ohrwurm (literally ear worm), which conjures up unpleasant images of the song crawling into your skull through your auditory canal. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found it ... thank you for not linking to such a travesty ... I'd rather have worms in my ears. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FCDW[edit]

The process...needs to be opener. I've revised the page to that effect. Has lasted remarkably long without a revert! ResMar 19:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your evangelical ideals Sandy, I dare say not a single thing has come out of here in almost a year. ResMar 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches might be better off staying dead[edit]

Yesterday, I decided to take up bringing Dispatches back online. Today, however, per this thread, I am withdrawing my willingness to get involved in the Dispatches section. We haven't even done anything yet and the work environment is already so hostile that I know that I'll get sucked into some pointless factionalistic brawl sooner rather than later if I stay, and I'd rather avoid that. If anyone else wants the dispatches, you should know that it's got serious history, and not in a good way. Perhaps it is better off staying dead. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Boneyard/Featured_content_dispatch_workshop/Archive_3&oldid=1166668351"