User talk:Mike Christie/Sandbox12

Timeline

 * Raul was not intially director; that timeline (with a lot of early dates) is at Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches
 * April 2004 WP:WIAFA initiated
 * July 2004 Template:FAC-instructions initiated

List:
 * Sep 2004 had one at a time and most were not self-noms back then ... anyone could nominate any work
 * Jan 2004 recognition that "not suitable for the mainpage" did not preclude FA
 * Sep 2004 inline citations not required
 * Oct 2004 comprehensive
 * Jan 2005 stability added
 * Feb 2005 inline citations tightened
 * Oct 2005 Tony does considerable rewrite and introduces current numbering scheme (which has changed slightly since then)
 * May 2005 summary style
 * Feb 2007 Fair use images
 * Does not need to be included, but Mike will appreciate this one: fixed by moi  and  and  ... after all of that the archive mess got somewhat sorted, but we only finished sorting messes in May 2008
 * June 2007, restriction on nominations
 * June 2007 consistently formatted citations
 * Lookie here, Mike Christie shows up ... and when did we lose this significant item ...
 * Jan 2008 Graphics discouraged (before template problem was discovered for a different reason)
 * Mar 2008 Requirement to be a significant contributor, or at least consult them, to nominate
 * April 2008, ability to archive with insufficient information added
 * Template problem discovered June 2008
 * Oct 2008 Two-week wait period started
 * Mar 2009 High quality sources
 * Jan 2010 More strict on one-at-a-time
 * Feb 2010 Suggest withdrawal added
 * Feb 2010 Wait period clarified and reinforced
 * Mar 2010 We were still struggling with abusive repeat noms, more wording
 * Aug 2010 tried to deal with lengthy commentary, where did this go?
 * October 2010 plagiarism. Long discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive48 appear inconclusive as to what exactly and when exactly we initiated the requirement for spot checks for new nominators.
 * But this showed we were doing it by January Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive49
 * 2012 still having template issues
 * Dec 2012 we once explicitly discouraged what is commonplace today. Because it discouraged reviewers, who could scan the page and think an article had been sufficiently reviewed.  When did this change?
 * July 2013, Raul removed, everything you need to know about when decline began: Big edit war follows, until finalized in September
 * May 2016 brilliant removed

Internal: look in FAC archives ...
 * Image checks required (when did Elcobbola start ... )
 * From reviewing FAC archives, it looks to me like Elcobbola serious image reviewing kicked in during February 2008. Not sure how to verify that. There was some image checking done in January, but nowhere near as serious as Elcobbola.  He wrote Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches in August, so that is probably about right. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth started source review
 * From looking through the archives, it appears to me that Ealdgyth begin doing citation consistency and formatting checks in March 2008 (what she referred to as checking links with the tool), and was checking for reliability as of April 2008. But  might doublecheck/verify?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * She wrote Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches in June, so probably about right. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

that's all I've got for now; can you think of anything I've missed? Perhaps one thing that can't be quantified or nailed down with data is that once I became delegate, there was no such thing as an automatic threshhold for promotion, and I wouldn't promote until I was satisfied every box had been checked. The Feb 2010 ability to archive after two reviewers suggested withdrawal was a huge asset to me as delegate, and I think resulted in significant change. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these, and for the notes on the other sandbox -- I should be able to look at these today or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike, I just realized that I already had a lot of this timeline, with specific diffs, at the stats talk page ... see the footnotes to that chart. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, will go through that. I just nominated a FAC, so will be doing reviews for a few days, and that'll delay me getting back to these, but I will eventually. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While it was interesting to step back through every change over time, I had already documented the significant changes at the WP:FAS talk page, as I tracked those issues and the data closely then. I am sorry to see that a central location for tracking FAC issues became yet another neglected factor in overall FA processing, as I don't think anyone at FAC these days (or for years) has even noticed that the page exists. Most of the substantial tightening of reviewing and of WIAFA standards occurred in 2008, with a bit more in 2010 (see the footnotes) and after the Rlevse copyvio affair, and I noted those at FAS when they occurred.  Long after the standards and reviewing processes tightened between 2008 and 2010, beginning in 2014, the oppose went away, and QPQ reviewing took over. As the bullying and supporting of buddy FACs took over, throughput declined, promote ratio increased, and lots of people simply left.  Diversity declined. You cannot prove or disprove any of this with data when there are so many conflating factors, but anyone who has followed FAC closely can easily understand why so many have left and why so many want nothing to do with what FAC is today. A bully pulpit aimed exclusively at getting their day at TFA, with no regard for overall quality. What will be will be; I can say I try my hardest to help on every end of the equation, from an essay in my own space, to re-invigorating PR, to re-engaging as a reviewer, to re-invigorating FAR, and to getting WP:URFA/2020 going.  As long as bullies are allowed to run FAC, FAC will continue to decline.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While the signs of a turnaround have been very promising, with many new reviewers engaging at FAR and URFA, I don't see quality reviewers like having any reason to return to actively reviewing at FAC, and with chasing out, I don't see any chance that prose standards will return any time soon. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)