User talk:Gog the Mild/FAC tasks

Query
Gog, so happy to see you spreading good cheer via barnstars. We "regulars" don't really need them, but I feel like it's good when talk page stalkers see an environment where collaboration is appreciated and work is rewarded, so the barnstars may work inadvertently on another audience. Anyway, really here to mention that I seem to remember mentioning once that he does this regularly, so that you might not need to do it anymore. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What I do is check that the number at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Featured_articles.html (which updates weekly) is the same as the number on the WP:FA page, and if they're different, I investigate. I don't check every week, but I do check regularly. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see ... what I used to check every six months or so is that the number listed on the page agrees with the number at the top of the page, as sometimes Coords forget to increase or decrease the tally. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I check that each time the page changes. DrKay (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI plural, just fixed these two. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio
Gog, I noticed this addition under “Promotion”. The problem with running Earwig when a nomination is ready for promotion (after significant copyediting and rewording may have occurred) is that it could miss precisely the scenario that occurred in the great copyvio debate of Halloween 2010, that led to adding copyvio checks at FAC. We missed that copyvio, in spite of knowing the prose was of a higher standard than typical for the nominator, because Mally (Eric Corbett) had copyedited. When I viewed the article a few days before promotion, I thought the prose was superior because of the copyedit, so did not check for copyvio or too close paraphrasing, and Karanacs promoted a few days later. If Karanacs had run Earwig, by that time, the cut-and-paste copyvio would have been obscured. The Earwig tool can be set to run on a specific version (diff) of the article, so if you’re running it just before promotion, it should or could be run on the diff pre-FAC (by which time a lot of effort may have been misspent). In the same vein, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Former_featured_articles&oldid=1057235427#Deleted_FAs? this conversation reminded me] that there are multiple things that I used to check as soon as a new nomination appeared (Earwig could be one of those) and it is possible they are no longer done; I can list those if you are interested in starting a section on your page of things to check as soon a nom first appears. Those are things like making sure GAN and PRs are closed, objections from previous FACs have been addressed, note if the article is an FFA so it can be moved at FFA if re-promoted, etc … there is more. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)