User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat/Archive 1

General
Andy, I know I've been derelict; I'll try to catch up now. Welcome, and you know we are thrilled to have your help! I've set up this page so we can coordinate schedules in one place, and we may have a rare occasion to dicuss something else, but we really have never consulted each other about how to handle any given FAC. Raul, Karanacs and I never discuss backchannel how to handle any individual FAC; in fact, when Raul first delegated me, he just turned me loose with no instruction! At first, that was scary, but over time I've really come to appreciate how he trusted me to find my own way. Other than coordinating our schedules for pr/aring, and clearing up some misconceptions around FAC, I don't think you'll need much instruction. Karanacs, Raul and I do e-mail to discuss private, real life issues that will prevent us from pr/aring and to get coverage from the other person. I'm not sure that promoting three times a week is strictly necessary, and it may be more helpful for us to alternate schedules so we can each get a break now and then. Karanacs can never do weekends (she takes weekends off), so she has been doing Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, while I've been doing the rest of the week. I sometimes have weekend plans, and tire of having to devote every weekend to FAC. What do y'all propose? I'm going to be traveling as of this Thursday (the 18th), so if you feel ready to take on this Thursday through the weekend, it's yours. Any of us can archive a driveby or multiple oppose FAC at any time, and any of us should close any FAC when ready that the other delegates have reviewed. Clearing up some stuff: there are some ideas floating around the community that three supports = promotion: not so. Depends on the situation, and whether everything has been reviewed, there has been independent review, topic expert review, etc. There are also ideas about fixed timing: not so. Depends on the backlog. But generally, we don't promote on less than three supports, in less than six days, and unless the backlog is really bad, we don't close in less than two weeks for lack of consensus. But, having said that, you're free to do it your way. We can use the mainpage of this subpage to post to each other our schedules and needs. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, one thing I forgot-- you don't want to be caught promoting at 0 UTC, or you'll edit conflict with the mainpage bolding bot (which you have to keep an eye on, because it sometimes goes down). Some pages:
 * User:SandyGeorgia/FA work, very old, feel free to update if it's awful, but it may be helpful.
 * , add |promoted or |archived, you don't need to add these if you're pr/aring right before Gimme's Tuesday and Saturday 0 UTC schedule, since he's usually through shortly after that, but if you pr/ar outside of his schedule, it's good to add those.
 * for notifying nominators of withdrawn articles.
 * I think User:SandyGeorgia/Withdrawn FAC is up to date, because I seem to remember Dabomb87 going through it recently.
 * You may find some things you need at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox, not sure.
 * We have to maintain the date template at the bottom of WP:GO since nobody else will do it.
 * I'll add things as I remember. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to my personal situation, I will be more available for weekends in the future. Karanacs (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm embarrassed to say I didn't even notice stuff was written on the Talk page until now. I have no idea how I missed it, but I've read it all now. What you've said makes sense—if I deviate, please let me know right away as it wouldn't be intentional, but I am human. I agree that twice-a-week should be sufficient. Now that there are three delegates, everyone should have a lot more breathing room. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recusals

 * Moved from main page:
 * All done, but after I finished I received a strange request from Wehwalt that I re-open both his promoted and archived FAC, and recuse from his future noms. Karanacs, Laser is recused from the NY Jets, so it's yours.  Done for the night, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude; see for the actual discussion.  Please be assured I did not ask lightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, now they can read it twice :) Wehwalt, in the future, please use the talk page here-- the mainpage is for our coordination, and it would be nice not to gum it up. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So sorry. Actually, I thought you would post on Karanac's talk page and I was planning on a brief note, but didn't see it so I was wondering if you were offline so checked your contributions.  And I pointed to the full discussion, not just the request.  Let's let it go at that, Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never had someone ask for a FAC to be "unpromoted" before, so yes, it was strange :) Nonetheless, as you wish.  I hope you find a copyeditor for the Jets.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good wishes. I guess if I had asked for only the archiving to be undone, it would have looked stranger still!  Anyway, what's done is done.  On we go.  Before the hook descends, Karanacs, on the Jets article, I have asked Brianboulton to look it over and see if it is his opinion that the article can be salvaged within the current time span of the FAC (not quite two weeks).  If he feels it can't, I will pull it and suffer the consequences.  Please allow him a few days to look it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (blinks) Are you sure that's the right diff you just posted, Sandy?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you're still trying to catch up ... yep, that's the right diff. I've made no mistakes tonight-- how 'bout you? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm done letting you bait me. Unwatchlisting.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So, to keep track of recusals: I am now recused from all of Wehwalt's FACs, per his request, and from TonyTheTiger. Sorry to heap extra work on you two, but the customer is first :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unprecedented use of WP:POINT by Wehwalt, if you ask me. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the most surreal and entertaining day of my "Wiki career" ... :)  I'm thinking Wehwalt may have had post-Turkey tryptophan haze :)  But, he demanded it, I gave him time to re-think, then I complied.  I do feel badly leaving the two of you with extra work, particularly when both cases (the promotion and the archival) were abundantly clear.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well then, if Laser brain deems it disruptive, I will withdraw my request. The Jets article apparently is going to need discussion about what is an acceptable level of colloquialism.  Looking at random FA soccer and cricket articles, I see very similar terminology.  Exactly what is a googly anyway?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

December

 * Current recusals for Andy:
 * Featured article candidates/.hack (video game series)/archive2
 * Featured article candidates/Taare Zameen Par/archive2
 * Featured article candidates/Lactarius volemus/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009/archive1
 * Dilemma; may have to e-mail Karanacs to see if she can pop in to look at this one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Kampung Boy (TV series)/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1
 * Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Governor of Kentucky/archive1


 * On my way home, sorry to be so little help, Andy-- I should be able to do this week and weekend. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had some family in town that just left last night—will be getting caught up soon. Hopefully I can look at the election article again. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional commentary moved to talk, as this page is for coordinating FAC schedules. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Planning to go through tomorrow, unless you want to... -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to let you do it; I've got plans. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009
Moved from main page here:
 * At this point, my involvement on the election article is higher than yours; we may need to ask Karanacs to have a look, unless you feel comfortable making the call yourself. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very uncomfortable with it, not because of my involvement, but because it needs work that hasn't been done. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out my objection to several of your statements. Sandy, on the article's review page you claimed that Eric Sundwall was not mentioned anywhere in the article, and that the AIG bonus scandal wasn't described to readers' satisfaction. There was an entire section devoted to third parties, mostly about Sundwall, and the bonus scandal, while not linked, was explained. I don't believe you've thoroughly read this article, and I'm still completely unclear about the "compelling story" you're asking for. You've asked for information the sources don't include, and chastised the editors for not including sources that were written in the last week. Most of your punctuation-based objections are based on stylistic preferences, not set policies, and your broader objections about length are so vague that they're inactionable. And Andy, I'm not aware of any work that still has to be done on the article. Your comments indicated support, then a suggestion that the lead might be expanded, but nothing concrete. I'm not trying to be adversarial, but my response to feedback during this process has been immediate. I've met my obligations as a nominator, and I expect delegates to meet their obligations as reviewers. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed my comments on the FAC page? There was a typo in the lead (Sundawall), I clearly indicated that I had stopped reading after the first few sections revealed many problems, and because of the typo in the article, my search on Sundawall did not reveal the additional content.  I think you should be concerned about the implications of supports with three typos in the lead. Further, WP:LEAD is clear on length (I believe that has been better addressed finally). And Andy's comments did not indicate support; please try to read the FAC more carefully-- that will be the fastest route to promotion.  And your statements about stylistic issues aren't entirely correct: unlike other articles, FAs must comply with MOS.  Additionally, as I clearly stated on the FAC, I included the newer sources as they were examples of the ways in which this article is unclear.  My objections to the dull prose, and lack of clarity and comprehensivenes, are laid out as clearly as possible on the FAC; I suggest that you get to work before Karanacs shows up; if you're still unclear on how to improve the article, it could be that you are too close to the material and don't see the problems, so asking a previously uninvolved editor to review could help.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just going to point out (he said as he noticed the explanation in the previous post) that I realize now that Sundwall was misspelled, therefore a search wouldn't have brought it up, however, that addition came about due to the request for a longer lead. In all sense of fairness, yes, Gyrobo misspelled Sundwall's name in the lead (and should have been more careful), but on the other hand, in scrolling down to read what you did read, you passed the table of contents, which clearly has a section named "Third parties". This lead rewrite was introduced after all the previous supports. So when you say, "I think you should be concerned about the implications of supports with three typos in the lead," it's not an accurate assessment because the lead had been written after those supports and it hadn't been peer reviewed yet. A real significant concern would have been if we made reference to one third party candidate in the lead but made no mention of him in his appropriate section. Regardless, the name is now spelled correctly and the lead is a hefty four paragraphs.  upstate NYer  18:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks (glad to hear it)! Before I promote an article, I read it; when I can't get past the first few sections without finding issues, I usually list them and stop reading.  I'm sorry I missed that, but the typo contributed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you put a lot of time into this. I used to do your job over at FPC and considering looking at a photo or restoration for a little while compares not to reading many-thousand-word articles before promotion, I respect what you do. We just ask that the conclusions and suggestions be clear. I'm going to go over your eleven points. As far as I can see, they are the only outstanding issues with the article. I'm also going to request one of the supporters to come back and peer review the lead. Then we can see where that brings us.  upstate NYer  18:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, things aren't as bad as they may seem, some of this reaction is unnecessary, and I don't think you're far from promotion-- just try to review some of the general concerns I raised about telling the story in a more compelling and comprehensive way (and watch out for typos :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor this, because the lead has been rewritten and now meets your expectations, but I have several other articles that I would like to nominate for FA and I'd really like to understand your objection to the original lead, as it may affect the leads of those articles. You keep saying that WP:LEAD is clear on length, and that it didn't bear repeating. In the FAC, I responded to this days ago by pointing out that for an article of fewer than 15,000 prose characters, two paragraphs are sufficient. Which part of WP:LEAD were you basing your objection on? --Gyrobo (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well .. ahem ... like most of MOS, LEAD used to be very clearly written, and now it's just bogged down. Here are some exerpts from there that might help:
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. (The old lead left me with too many questions-- if a reader reads only the lead, they should get most of the info they need).
 * That's one of the reasons I was slightly frustrated when I didn't think you read beyond the first two sections: if you don't have a full comprehension of the article's body, how can you judge whether the lead is an adequate summary of all the major points?
 * You may be misunderstanding; most casual readers only read the lead, so it should be able to stand alone, and not leave the reader wondering. I posted many samples to the FAC of things I was left wondering and then went looking for in the text (like Sundawall, and the Clinton issue).  You shouldn't leave a reader wondering!  You should entice them to read further, but the lead should be able to stand alone.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. (I felt "teased" in this sense, as if I had to read more to understand the election.)
 * If you had pointed to specific examples of areas that needed to be further elaborated, I would have been glad to accommodate. As you said earlier, I'm pretty close to the subject matter and may not be able to accurately gauge what would need elaboration in a summary. I rely on direct and specific feedback from uninvolved editors; saying the lead is sparse is different from saying that the lead is sparse because it lacks a passage on the major talking points both candidates used, or that it lacks information on the district's background, etc. In the future I'll try harder to let reviewers know when I feel their comments are inactionable.
 * I thought my 11 examples did that :) Before that, I thought WP:LEAD adequately explained it, but I see it's not written as clearly as it used to be.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. (It diddn't make me want to know more-- it forced me to need to search for more.)
 * My answer to the second point pretty much cover this. Thank you for helping improve the article during this FAC, I hope my own feedback here is helpful to you. If anything, it should at least give you an idea of the kind of direction I'll be looking for in future FACs.
 * I think you'll be happier in the end after a tough review; you don't want these kinds of problems surfacing if the article goes on the mainpage, so a nitpicky rigorous FAC is in your best interest. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps; Laser usually goes through FAC on Tuesday or Wednesday, so I haven't peeked today. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My recusals
Andy, I want to make sure you're aware of my recusals-- I peeked in at Chavez and had to direct some words at Lecen again, so I don't want to close his FACs. So, my list is:
 * TonyTheTiger
 * Wehwalt
 * Lecen
 * and of course, anything Chavez or Venezuela-related. (I don't think anything Tourette's-related will ever come to FAC, 'cuz I don't have time to write it :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandy, at this point, it's entirely up to you whether you close my articles or not. At Laser Brain's urging, I withdrew my objection.  Completely your call, and I'll say no more about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the thought, but it's not about me or you, it's about FAC, and I have no desire to expose FAC to such a precedent-setting issue ever again. I archived one article, and promoted another, that you wanted reversed because you thought I'd acted unfairly; they both ended up exactly as I had closed them, but the interim charges that I had acted unfairly or with a COI (besides being unjust) were not good for FAC, and I don't intend to expose FAC to that possibility again.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As you like. In the best interest of FAC, I felt duty bound to make the offer.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and glad for the notice about Lecen. I'm actually not all that sure I should be closing Tony's nominations, either. Perhaps I'll ask him next time he has something listed. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

January
Will likely go through today, just FYI. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)