User talk:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates

Dank
My preference would be to point people to WP:Checklist rather than User:Dank/Copyediting_tools_and_links. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ideas from the GA guidelines
Thanks for the note on my talk page pointing to this. Apologies for not having the time to comment before now. I do have some thought of my own on this, but for now I've recently been reading through the pages associated with the WP:Good articles system, and I thought some of the guidance in the documentation there might be useful here. I thought this mainly because, as Compare Criteria Good v. Featured says, several of the criteria are actually identical (or nearly identical) for GA and FA. The other advice that I thought looked good was the summaries at the main Good article nominations page, under the title 'How to review an article'. In particular, I noticed that under the advice for what to do when passing a nomination, it said 'Encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.' I wonder if this could be done at FAC as well, if it is not already done. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Two criteria are identical: "neutrality" and "both require articles to stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". There are similarities in the stability and image requirements as well. What might be helpful is to point this out to reviewers who might be familiar with the GA review system, and might not think they can apply some of that to reviewing featured article candidates.
 * (2) Some elements of Reviewing good articles looked useful (though some are not relevant here). In particular, the concept of a 'First things to look for' is something I'd like to see applied here. There are some basic things that have to be checked first before anything else, mainly to avoid wasted effort. The advice provided in 'Assessing the article and providing a review' is also useful as much of it can be applied seamlessly to FAC reviews (though some of it can't). The advice in 'Mistakes to avoid in reviews' and 'Dealing with disputes' also looked good.
 * (3) The other page that look good was What the Good article criteria are not. Might be some useful things there.
 * Not a bad idea, but unlike at GAN at FAC it isn't the reviewers who pass the nom, it's the delegates, so probably best to raise it at WT:FAC. Reviewers can by all means encourage other reviewers, but it isn't as much within their purview as at GAN. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Some more thoughts
A few more thoughts, in the hope that it might help. That's not exhaustive, but it sums up my preferred approach. It can be 'draining', and may be better suited to a pre-FAC level such as peer review, but as FAC is often the last detailed review process an article will go through in its history, I think it is important that an article is reviewed thoroughly either at this stage or before this stage (or the combined effects of several reviews ensure this level of scrutiny). In particular, if an article arrives at FAC without a prior review of any sort, then although FAC is not peer review, the fact that the FAC will be the first review requires it to be an in-depth and thorough one. Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Some thoughts I jotted down a while ago last year are at User:Carcharoth/Reviewing.
 * (2) Getting up to speed on an article (its prior editing history and review history) is important. In some cases the nominator will do this for you, in other cases you will have to read around a bit yourself. Typical places to look are the article history (including when it was first created, who the most frequent editor is, and so on), the article talk pages and archives, the previous reviews (if any), and also looking a bit into the nominator's editing history (even if you recognise the name, you might not be familiar with what an editor does around here - a brief look at the sort of articles they edit, and their user page and talk page should be enough).
 * (3) For an in-depth review, a reviewer needs to be prepared to read through the entire article several times, including its sources (where available online, or from your bookshelf if you have a copy of a book - rare but possible). For the benefit of other reviewers and the nominator, it helps to make clear which sources you (the reviewer) don't have access to, and whether you are doing a thorough review or just looking at part of the article or a particular aspect.
 * (4) As a general philosophy, I think it helps to start and end a review with reading completely through the article from start to finish, at a normal reading pace rather than just skimming it. The initial reading gives you an idea of the overall shape and content of what you are reviewing, and the final reading helps get clear whether any changes made have bedded in properly. During the initial reading (which should only this stage, jotting down initial queries and objections can be helpful, but don't get drawn too much into that until later readings. Mentally separate the issues into minor and major ones, and ones related to the FA criteria and ones unrelated to those criteria (the latter can be mentioned, but possibly on the article talk page and not the review page).
 * (5) To avoid overwhelming a FAC review (or any review), consider jotting thoughts down elsewhere and bringing them over in summarised form to the main review page.
 * (6) Be prepared to ask the nominator direct questions, such as when they first started editing the article and how much remedial work and checking they did on the article if it had an extensive editing history before they arrived. Other questions include asking them to say more about the sources used - someone who can give more background on sources and the topic is more likely to know what they are talking about, though some level of independent checking is still needed as always. Also be prepared to ask the nominator whether they have access to all the offline sources used, or not.
 * (7) Technical point: to ensure that the comments you make at a review makes sense following later changes made to the article, consider providing a version date and link to the page version you are reviewing, and/or quoting the material you think needs changing.
 * (8) Another piece of advice, which I noticed in one of the GA guidelines, is to not be swayed by the amount of work done by a nominator during a review, or leading up to a review. If an article doesn't meet the criteria, it shouldn't be a featured article. There is no 'nearly-but-not-quite-a-featured-article' status.
 * (9) Be diplomatic and say what is good about the article. A review shouldn't be just a list of criticisms, no matter how constructive. Provide encouragement as well.
 * (10) Be prepared to return to the review several times and strike or otherwise mark in some way as addressed any objections you raised that the nominator has responded to or addressed. But don't get dragged into an endless round of back-and-forth. Be prepared at some stage to state your opinion and/or move on. Do ensure the page is tidy and your final opinion is clear to the delegates assessing whether to promote or archive a nomination.
 * On nos 2, 3, and 4 no, no, no ... please :) It is precisely this sort of notion (that you must commit hours or you can't do anything) and verbiage that scares reviewers off and makes them think they don't know enough to contribute at FAC!  You can wade in in small pieces and still make a difference-- you do NOT have to commit hours!  Please don't put in more language of this nature.  You can look at one thing at a time and that is sometimes enough to Oppose (for example, non-reliable sources, or images, or samples of poor prose, or accurate representation of sources, or MOS).  Yes, to Support an article, you should be prepared to read through it and understand the sources, but it's Opposes that are short at FAC, and it's opposes of the kind that say, no, this article isn't ready yet, here are some samples from each area of the criteria (1a,1b, 2, etc) so you'll have something to work on before your next approach.  A GA reviewer has to cover everything because she or he is the only closer: on FA, any part that anyone can contribute helps, and the views expressed above could be off-putting to new reviewers, while they don't say anything that experienced reviewers don't already know.   Experienced reviewers know they should make sure all is covered to Support, but it's new reviewers we don't want to scare off, and any little bit they can do will help.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, per your addition based on the above, perhaps consider changing"be prepared to read the entire article, and perhaps also its talk page, sources and previous reviews as necessary." to something about reviewing any one area is sufficient to oppose but "before supporting, be prepared to read the entire article, and perhaps also its talk page, sources and previous reviews as necessary." Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Sandy has said here. My suggestions above were always meant to be discussed before being taken on board in any way, and the point about piecemeal versus whole reviewing is important (because nearly all reviewers start off small and only try more later), but this was the distinction that caused me most confusion before I realised I wasn't happy with 'partial' supports based on reviewing only a few aspects of an article, but of course opposes accurately based on any one of the criteria are absolutely valid opposes. Maybe suggest that reviewers need to try and get clear in their mind whether they are prepared to do a full review, or a partial review, and have that objective clear at the start, and to communicate it to the delegates. Maybe even use language pointing out that the closing delegate reviews all the comments and puts them together to create a full picture, and will ask for bits that haven't been done to be looked at. This might seem obvious to delegates, but to people looking at FACs for the first time, it may not be at all obvious. On point (2), I do think it is important to read through earlier reviews, if only to avoid repeating objections raised and dealt with earlier (unless those objections need repeating). And the bit about 'next approach' is important as well. It is better for an article that is nearly at FA-level to be opposed, and to then be improved and come back and pass second time round, rather than go through first time under-prepared. Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They're good comments that folks should know before supporting, but for the purposes of bringing in new reviewers, it sounds too scary! But yes, there is still another need-- to get Supporters to understand that drivebys, or supporting without considering whether all aspects have been reviewed, aren't helpful. How to achieve a balance without scaring off new reviewers is the problem-- but the bigger problem right now is encouraging new reviewers, and delegates can weigh the strength of "premature" supports, so let's not scare 'em off :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

2c from Casliber
Two points I find I think of alot while reviewing, one an overview, the other an algorithm:


 * I guess I try to think of it generally, the key question a reviewer should ask themselves when reading an article is, "Are there any changes which would make this article better?". This is what FAC is all about. Or at least, that's how I think of it. Also to consider it a collaborative process, where the nominator (and other contributing editors) are working together with reviewers to problem-solve and think of ways of improving an article. Maintaining a collaborative focus is good for morale of writers and reviewers - try to think about and offer solutions if problems are found.


 * In the Expert vs layperson section, a covering sentence in the beginning stating that both types of reviewers are extremely helpful. As an encyclopedia for the general public, the aim is to write material in as plain English as possible....but without sacrificing accuracy. Wherever there is a technical or jargon-containing segment of text, there is an opportunity for a lay-reviewer to point this out to the writer. The objective is to then write it in as plain English as possible. However if using plainer words and phrases results in loss or inaccuracy of meaning, other means must be found to explain content.

Anyway, do what thou wilt :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Alt text
Note that alt text is currently not a requirement for images. Is this still true? The FA criteria require that an article complies with the Manual of Style, and MOS:ACCIM, part of the MOS accessibility guideline, states Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge that remains true. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Alt_text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. This might be an instance where what we think our guidance says and what it actually says to the letter isn't aligned. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)