User:Yomangan/FAC

With FAC, as with just about every process every on Wikipedia, "it is generally accepted that the process is broken". The problem with FAC is that the promotion of some articles give the reviewers a sense of unease or injustice. There are a number of reasons for this, some of which are, in my opinion, impossible to deal with without starting afresh (something that nobody is seriously considering). There are number of areas in which improvements could be made to criteria, application, and mindset to either exclude such articles or prevent their inclusion until such time as they are deemed worthy. Some of the areas that I think merit discussion are listed below in no particular order and with my random thoughts on each. I doubt it is a comprehensive list.


 * 1) Demand that an article be comprehensive Often articles are passed deficient in an area that a reader would expect to be covered because there are no sources available on that area. How far should this be permitted? The assertion that historical figures such as Plato could never be passed under a system that demanded certain information for all FAs is true, but a criterion based around the likelihood of sources becoming available could provide a get out. We aren't likely to get much more on Plato but we might on George Bush. Circulation figures exist for some 50s magazines, so it could be reasonable to expect that they could exist for all 50s magazines (sorry Mike, I needed an example).
 * 2) Rejection of WikiProject control Often we see requests for changes rejected on the basis that the current format is the particular Wikiproject's standard. How far should that be acceptable when some Wikiprojects may consist of two or three members?
 * 3) Engagement of reviewers on articles outside their field Substandard articles pass because reviewers do not review them while others with interests in the field or associated with the nominator or editors support the articles. If reviewers spread their nets wider it would counter this bias. Engagement of FAC reviewers on the articles outside FAC would be helpful too.
 * 4) Rejection of candidates which do not meet the criteria Over time FAC has switched from being an arena for judging the appropriateness of promotion to more of an interactive peer review where FAs are "made". Maybe we should consider a return to the older attitude where we just said yes or no. This would prevent these run-on FACs that engender feelings of resentment from the nominators when they fail (though admittedly it might engender resentment towards individual opposers).
 * 5) Consistent application of the criteria It is hard to apply the criteria consistently. It is far easier to apply them rigorously to a short article where the reviewer is knowledgeable on the subject. On longer articles the reviewer may not be able to summon the effort to list the deficiencies or suggested changes. If we were to just oppose or support with a brief justification as suggested in Rejection of candidates which do not meet the criteria above, it would be easier to engage and remain consistent.
 * 6) Deletion of WBFAN. Counting contributions is a pet hate of mine. No FA is the work of one person. The argument is that this chart encourages contributions because people have something to aim for in seeing their name rise up the chart. Find anybody who will admit that their main aim in submitting FACs is to get their name higher up the chart. Maybe the underlying thrill of seeing yourself higher up the chart is what is encouraging the submission of what are regarded as substandard FAs? Maybe this discourages people from engaging in Peer Review, FAR or helping out with a substandard article away from FAC where they do not have their name added to a chart.
 * 7) Swallowing pride. Because the star lumps all FAs together in a simple class, editors who have spent weeks or months slogging over an FA feel aggrieved when they see somebody nominating a "cookie-cutter" article a couple of days after their last FAC, and even more so when it passes. Maybe people just need to be less touchy about this. WP:FA says:
 * "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria."
 * That's fairly downbeat, so doesn't put your magnum opus on a par with the 90th article on subject X this week. As I said to Ling.Nut in a discussion on FAC:
 * "The fact is that some FAs are always going to be harder to produce than others, and some are always going to be of a higher standard than others, and often the harder to produce articles are going to be the better ones. I find it helps to look beyond the shiny star. Unless you are measuring your worth by how far up WP:WBFAN you are, the star doesn't mean hell of a lot. If the article was hard to research and had a tough time at FAC it is probably a better article as a result. Who cares if a lot of video gamers don't read it?"
 * Have pride in your work for the work in itself, not in comparison to another FA which you feel is substandard.
 * 1) Minimum word count For those who think "short" is the problem (we have still to see any article pass where the criteria are met and shortness itself is the problem) this is the kneejerk solution. It is a lazy and unworkable solution. Splitting out short articles to their own FA process is equally unworkable for reasons I stated here (among others).
 * 2) Notability This is unworkable. AFD decides on notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia: a far simpler measure, yet it is backed up with an entire system for ascertaining this together with reams of policy information. FAC simply can not support this.
 * 3) Extending the stability criteria Is an article stable if a major event is likely to change it beyond all recognition? Maybe FAR is the correct destination for such promoted FAs, but maybe we should consider this before promoting them (Obama and McCain being obvious examples)
 * 4) Rejecting articles on criteria outside FAC This is tied closely to stability, but if the article qualifies for AFD, or a merge or split is suggested maybe the FAC can be rejected until such matters have been resolved. Yomangani talk 12:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)