Wikipedia:Featured article review/Null (SQL)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was mistakenly promoted.

Null (SQL)
This article was promoted 2007-05-22, but I believe that Raul made a mistake promoting it, as the FAC doesn't show any consensus of promoting the article. Perhaps he meant to fail the article, but moved it to the wrong log. → Aza Toth 13:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please post your objections to this article having WP:FA status so that contributors might at least attempt to make the corrections necessary. Thanks. SqlPac 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left a note for Raul. Marskell 14:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In either case, it can be resolved without a FAR; a talk page note to Raul solves this one, so can we remove it from FAR anyway? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's wait until Raul comments. If it was accidental, perhaps we can use this page to comment further on the article. It does seem odd. Very short with unstruck opposes. Marskell 14:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please post your objections to this article having WP:FA status so that contributors might at least attempt to make the corrections necessary. Thanks. SqlPac 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Will wait to see, but don't think it was odd; it came on the talk page at FAC, and perhaps Raul thought there were no valid Opposes. We'll see :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely Raul would have restarted at most.  Pagra shtak  20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let everyone remember Raul is human like the rest of us, and can also make mistakes. LuciferMorgan 20:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please post your objections to this article having WP:FA status so that contributors might at least attempt to make the corrections necessary. Thanks. SqlPac 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As a contributor on Null (SQL) I was surprised to see it make WP:FA status, considering the objection the reviewers gave us: the article was not dumbed-down enough for them to make WP:FA status. Of course this objection was addressed by others who said it shouldn't be dumbed-down, and also that it was adequately understandable. Personally, I've been informed by other Wikipedians that articles addressing technical subjects have a very low chance of achieving WP:FA status anyway, and that if I want to work on articles with a chance of achieving WP:FA status, I should work on an article about a State Flag or a popular movie star who is having sex with another popular movie star; since the content is more easily dumbed-down. SqlPac 21:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the article that is in view-point at this moment, but more if Raul made a mistake when closing the nomination. Please also do not spam each other row. → Aza Toth 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Spam? That's a strong word.  This article was promoted to WP:FA, and someone has now submitted the article for WP:FAR.  As a contributor to the article, I would simply like to know what the nominator (and those who posted comments seemingly in support of the nominator) suggests should be done by the contributors to the article to get this process moving along.  As stated, I was as surprised as anyone to see the article achieve WP:FA status, as the decision was made among the contributors to not dumb down the article; even though the reviewers implied that dumbing down of content (their primary objection) was a criteria for WP:FA status.  Other objections were responded to and corrected immediately as well.  If the content and quality of the article are actually not in question, then why are we having this discussion on WP:FAR at all?
 * Lets show a screenshot that might say more than a couple of words. → Aza Toth 14:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC) [[Image:Spam in NULL(SQL).png|600px]]
 * Your screenshot highlights the three sentences I posted with the word "Thanks" appended; however, it conveniently hides the context of my posts in a dark gray background. While I have a copy of PaintShop Pro as well, I've decided that anyone who cares can look at the context of my requests for further guidance themselves.  Trying to highlight my posts out of context (specifically the context of requesting further specific information from three posters who spoke up in apparent support of this nomination) is a bit disingenuous at best.
 * But let's stay on topic here. Requesting that an article's WP:FA status be removed because you feel that a "mistake was made in the process", without bothering to point out any particular issues you have with the article, or even speaking in support of the objections that were raised, appears rather disingenuous and strictly bureaucratic.  I notice that the FA reviewers' objections keep being referred to by the posters here, but no one has actually said anything in support of specific objections.  And no one has yet told the contributors what can be done to fix the article if it is indeed broken.  So far the only objection here appears to be that the article was promoted despite the reviewers' objections, and that bothers some.  Beyond that, no one has bothered to give any specifics on this page yet...
 * I think I can speak for the other contributors on this article when I say Please give us guidance on what can/should be changed to fix the article if it is broken. And if you support some or all of the original reviewers' objections, please provide us the specific objections that you support so that we can address them. SqlPac 15:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From my point of view (and I freely admit I am not the most experienced Wiki contributor), it appears that you and the others here have not voiced: 1) objections to the quality or content of the article itself, or 2) support for the objections raised by the previous reviewers. It appears that you are requesting the article's WP:FA status be pulled on a technicality.  If this is not the case, and there is something actually wrong with the article I think that the contributors have a right to know what it is that's wrong so we can attempt to fix it.  If it is a technicality based objection, and there is noting actually wrong with the article, this seems a little unnecessary, to say the least.  SqlPac 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going enforce the "extenuating circumstances" rule strictly, you should at least be consistent about it. According to Marksall, "'Extenuating circumstances' usually means a) the article is about to go to the mainpage with some major flaw or b) the article has changed drastically since the nom and thus not an approved version." Neither applies here. For all we know, Raul simply didn't think the two objections were all that problematic. According to SandyGeorgia, "We have *never* reviewed an article here right after Raul promoted it — we're not in the business of second-guessing Raul." Punctured Bicycle 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PB, you're right, but the difference is that it was clear the Raptors article was properly promoted, while here people are concerned it might have been a mistake. If Raul clears it, then the review will be removed. Marskell 07:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus." There wasn't silence; at least two people had major concerns grounded in the FA criteria. So, there wasn't consensus. An article shouldn't be promoted without consensus. It was. I too am concerned that there might have been a mistake. Punctured Bicycle 10:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Marskell; in the case of Toronto Raptors, it was clear Raul intended to promote and was aware of the issues. Here, we're not sure it wasn't a mistake (you can review Raul's talk page and see that he's quite busy, and that I catch small mistakes in FA archiving/promoting frequently).  We need to hear from Raul on this one. If I read the words "dumbed down" one more time, I may scream.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary concern was that the article was not dumbed down enough. The other concerns (red link, etc.) were either fixed, and posts were made to the reviewers requesting additional information.  The reviewers did not bother responding to those requests, and still others said that some of the reviewer's objections were a "style choice".  As you say, "two people had major concerns grounded in the FA criteria"; I am asking that the posters here provide additional guidance on which of those concerns are grounded in FA criteria, and what we can do to fix this article if it is broken.  It actually doesn't seem to me to be too big of a request -- I see these types of posts all throughout this page; people simply post something like "You need to fix x, y, and z" or "You need to change a, b, c".  Is getting adequate information like this from an WP:FAR nomination supposed to feel like pulling your own teeth with rusty piano wire?  SqlPac 15:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop bolding "dumbed down" every time you write it? Thanks.  Pagra shtak  18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to if it would move the focus of this entire conversation to content as opposed to bureaucratic processes. SqlPac 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to sound harsh, but the biggest issue right now is whether Raul654 intended to promote this article, or if he made a mistake. Quite honestly, his interpretation of community consensus is the only deciding factor as to whether an article is featured or not. To object to the conversation focusing on a bureaucratic process is a little silly, as the entire Featured Article system is a bureaucratic process. If this is in fact a mistake, no amount of improvement to the article can make it be featured without another run through FAC. If you wish to improve the article in the mean time, I suggest you look at the unstruck objections in the previous FAC.  Pagra shtak  04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not harsh at all. But this might be:  I find it a little bit ridiculous that so many bureaucrats who are not the least bit interested in the content of an article, who have no desire to suggest improvements to an article, and have not raised any objections to an article, prefer to waste time arguing about rules than  helping improve content.  As for the unstruck objections, they were addressed by changes to the article, by asking questions of the reviewers (which went unanswered by them), and by responses from other reviewers.  I'll look at Marskell's suggestions and make those improvements, but beyond that no one here has offered any advice or information; no one here cares about the content of the article; and no one here cares to provide guidance on improving it.  I would be extremely surprised to find that anyone here has even so much as read the article.  The only purpose of this forum is a rule, which would seem to fly in the face of the so-called Official Policy located at Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, don't you think?  SqlPac 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added suggestions to the talk, namely the lead and ref formatting. Marskell 12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for some good feedback, it's appreciated. I will go back and make the improvements.  SqlPac 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Marskell, I've made your recommended changes. SqlPac 20:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I support SqlPac here (but no more dumbing down, cuz nobody wants to hear Sandy scream! :-). If the "promotion" was done accidentally, then the FAC should be returned to the FAC page and remain open. There was no substantial FAC commentary, other than "too technical", which is an easy argument (I could argue the same about royalty articles full of in-the-know Britishisms I'll never understand). SqlPac deserves to be given specific examples of how to improve the article if someone is objecting to it here or on the FAC page.

As an aside, SqlPac, you seem a perfectly valid sort of Wikipedia user, but one whose common sense may get the best of you vis-à-vis your relation to this project. The bureaucracy that you mention can be a killer on WP (especially if it's also your day job :-). In asking for feedback and/or a normal treatment for your FAC, you're in the right here, so don't let anyone twist this around; but should you appear impatient, then it might seem that you have the problem. But all you did was write a decent article and try to put it through a process. And sorry to others for the aside, but we value different perspectives, don't we? Regards, – Outriggr  § 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Outstanding. Thanks for your kind words  Outriggr  §.  I'm just a guy who decided to take on a two paragraph stub and try to turn it into "some of the best content on Wikipedia".  I definitely won't make that mistake again.  Thank you to everyone here for your wonderfully insightful and helpful guidance, recommendations, and suggestions.  BTW, is it official policy to remove all traces of motivation from honest contributors trying to raise content to the highest standards, or is that determined on a per-clique basis?  SqlPac 04:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed FAR listing, per Raul's talk page. I left a note for Gimmetrow asking him to correct archives and the article talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page. '