Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2013 elections/Candidates

{| style="width:90%; border:1px solid #A3B1BF;" cellspacing="10" align="center"




 * Links for Crisco 1492:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated processes (FLC, FLRC)?
 * A: I have written 14 featured lists and successfully nominated two TFLs (one for April Fools). I have also done probably close to 60 reviews.


 * 2. Why do you believe you'd make a good delegate?
 * A: I am regularly online and understand the criteria well enough. I have had previous experience as an admin helping with DYK, so I am familiar with the need to review a large number of articles in a short period of time.


 * 3. Are you aware of the the procedures on closing FLC/FLRC candidates?
 * A: I am vaguely aware, though I would naturally refamiliarise myself with the process (and any automated tools) if I became a delegate.


 * 4. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
 * A: I'm quite active on Wikipedia, with a minimum of 10 edits a day and over 500 articles to my name. I'm usually on in the early morning, afternoon, and night local time (UTC+7).

Additional question from Hahc21
 * 5. How would you assess consensus when closing a FLC candidate? Let's say we have a nomination with four support and two oppose votes. All the comments from the opposers appear to be addressed but the users who opposed have yet to revisit their votes. However, two weeks have elapsed since the last comment was made, and it's time to close the nomination. Which action would you take?
 * A: Thank you for the question. Should such an occasion come up, I would first ping the oppose !voters and ask them to revisit their comments and see if they had been addressed to the !voters' satisfaction. Should neither of them respond within a reasonable period of time (72 hours, I think), but the comments be truly addressed as I gauge them, I would likely consider those comments actioned and close as a promotion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from The Rambling Man
 * 6. What three things would you do to improve FLC?
 * A: First, I would propose a change to require nominators to review at least one other list upon nominating (to cut back on the backlog). Second, I would like to see image checks become a standard part of reviews, so that copyright violations don't unwittingly reach the main page. Thirdly, I would like to propose a change which ensures that reviewers actually look at the article by ignoring plain supports (particularly those given early on in a nomination). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 7. What would you do to improve TFL and would you push for a second slot on the main page?
 * A: I would try and find a way to deal with the backlog, first and foremost. TFLR is far more regularly filled then TFAR. A second slot would work into that, likely for Friday. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from Matthewedwards
 * 8. Do you feel there is an abundance of nominations from certain categories such as sports or music? If so, do you think this could be what contributes to "reviewer fatigue", seeing the same types of lists over and over? What might be done to combat that?
 * A: Although it is true that a large number of nominations are in a certain field (film would be another one), I do not think limiting the type of lists nominated is going to do anything more than chase nominators away. As you say below, FLs are a very niche subject, and if someone is only well-versed in one area, they will simply stop if they cannot write in that area. Also, as a reviewer I generally find the existence of other featured lists in the same area helps greatly, because it sets a very clear precedent of what is expected. As for what to do, I believe what we have on the books now is enough (limited number of nominations per nominator) although I'd consider making it stricter.


 * 9. VoxelBot stops operating. It is now up to you as a delegate to manually archive nominations. How do you archive a successful FLC nomination?
 * A: If I'm not mistaken, it goes something like:
 * Post the result on the nomination page (passed / failed) then hat the discussion using the same format as Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Citra Award for Best Supporting Actress/archive1, being sure to write if it passed or failed.
 * If it failed, transclude it to the "failed" log. If it passed, transclude it to the "passed" log.
 * Update the article history / FL nomination template on the article's talk page (passed/failed).
 * Give a star for passed lists
 * Update WP:FL, including the count, for passed lists.


 * 10. Generally, lists are a niche subject. What will you do to promote FLC and bring in more nominations and more reviewers overall?
 * A: If a quality list were to come through DYK or I'd stumble across it, I would contact the main contributor and ask if they had considered going for FL. I also think TFLs would help make FLs better known and easier to socialise, and thus (as I've said above) a second TFL slot would be quite helpful.


 * 11. Being a delegate of FL doesn't mean just closing a nomination and moving it to a log page so besides FLC and the log pages, name another FL-related page that a director has to look after/babysit/edit on a regular basis.
 * A: Today's featured list and WP:FLCR are the most obvious, although it would help to at least watchlist the templates used here (particularly the introduction templates)


 * 12. A first-time nominator has started an FLC, but they've forgotten to transclude it at WP:FLC. A month has passed, it's had no comments, but it's been brought to your attention by a third editor. What options do you have in dealing with this, and what would you do with it?
 * A: Give the list a quick reading to see if it is even close to the level expected. If it isn't, delete the nom per WP:G6 (similar to what's done at FAC). If it is, ping the nominator and ask that he/she transclude the page and continue their nomination. If he/she is unwilling and I know the subject area, I may end up nominating and babysitting it myself as a normal editor. As for how long it would be run, I'd lean towards at least a full month after transclusion (2 months is where FLCs have been headed recently), thus ensuring that the list is not treated differently then any others.


 * Links for Status:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated processes (FLC, FLRC)?
 * A: I have successfully nominated 12 featured lists (three on my own and nine in collaboration with other users). I couldn't put out a specific number, but I have been involved in many FLCs.  As for FLRCs, I'm not too familiar, but I can say that I've left input on a couple over the years.


 * 2. Why do you believe you'd make a good delegate?
 * A: I am a very organized person and I love making – and seeing – things look "pretty". This greatly applies to featured lists, as any tables involved need to be properly formatted according to our accessibility standards.  I am also an avid writer, both on and off Wikipedia, so I will be able to spot any errors in the prose.  Of course, I am not alone at FLC, as I am aware that I will coexist with other users during the course of the nomination and promotion period.  I not only understand the requirements for featured lists, but I also understand what goes into creating them and the urgency of some users to get their lists promoted.  I will keep the process as timely as I possibly can.  With my love of organization and prose, my good demeanour, willingness to help and a broad knowledge of the requirements for featured lists, I would make a good delegate.


 * 3. Are you aware of the the procedures on closing FLC/FLRC candidates?
 * A: I am aware of the standard FLC procedures and vaguely familiar with the closing ones, but I would definitely brush up on it if I were to be elected.


 * 4. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
 * A: I am quite active on Wikipedia. I may not be always editing, but I almost always have a tab open just to keep an eye on things.  On weekdays, I am usually more active in the early-afternoons (around noon to 2pm) and evenings (6pm+), although some days I could be around all afternoon.  On weekends, it depends on prior commitments, but I usually log up to 5 or 6 hours throughout the day.  I have my current time listed on my user page.

Additional question from Hahc21
 * 5. How would you assess consensus when closing a FLC candidate? Let's say we have a nomination with four support and two oppose votes. All the comments from the opposers appear to be addressed but the users who opposed have yet to revisit their votes. However, two weeks have elapsed since the last comment was made, and it's time to close the nomination. Which action would you take?
 * A: I would leave a message on the talk page of the two users who opposed asking them to revisit their comments. As two weeks have elapsed, it's safe to assume they've either forgotten about it or have been tied up in other things.  If they don't reply within a timely manner, I would take it upon myself to access their comments and make sure that they have been fully addressed.  The opposes would then be seen as invalid in my eyes and I would close the list as promoted.

Additional questions from The Rambling Man
 * 6. What three things would you do to improve FLC?
 * A: As I am sure we are all aware, FLCs tend to attract less reviewers than GAN and DYK. This can cause several different scenarios: a) The same select few users reviewing each list in the queue b) A list being in the queue for months with little or no comments or c) Users being annoyed at having little or no comments, so they ask people they know to comment on the list. These scenarios limit the amount of opinions that could make the list the best it could be. It also slows down the process. Generally, we tend to only review things that interest us. And then there's some users who don't review FLCs at all. What makes the DYK backlog not as big is that you are required to do a QPQ review upon your DYK submission. If we were to apply that method to FLC, if a user wanted to nominate a list, they would also have to review one. The user could then denote which list that they reviewed in the opening statement of their FLC nomination. As a delegate, I would like to see this, or something of a similar nature, come into place. We need to bring in more reviewers somehow. Another thing that I would like to see added to the FLC process are image and media checks, if they so apply. Other than those two issues, there's nothing else that I would do to improve the FLC process. The main issue is the lack of reviewers, which would be my number one priority to improve FLC.


 * 7. What would you do to improve TFL and would you push for a second slot on the main page?
 * A: I think a major problem with TFL is that not that many people know it exists. Looking at the queue, there are nominations dating back to May, with very little comments. There's several nominations from June with no comments what-so-ever! As I am not as familiar with TFL as I am with FLC, I'm not sure on what exactly could be done to improve it. I think that it could definitely benefit from some more time on the main page. To get it's name out there, maybe a message could be left on every promoted list letting the user know that they could nominate it at TFL.

Additional questions from Matthewedwards
 * 8. Are you prepared to promote a list that has the required support, but which you don't like, be it for layout, content, prose, whatever?
 * A: If I have an issue with the list, for whatever reason that may be, I would either i) Leave my 2¢ ii) Leave it up to another delegate or iii) All of the above. The latter being the most likely to occur. The required support may already be there, but if there are issues that I have noticed that others have not, I could not, in good conscience, promote it. As the next questions deals with reviewing lists, I will not go into more detail about it here and will below.


 * 9. Do you expect to be reviewing lists during your time as delegate? If so, how will you do it while staying neutral? Do you think a delegate reviewing lists at FLC could be seen to be pushing their own ideals of a Featured List on to the nomination? Could others be influenced by what you've said in a review, as if it's more official than a review by a non-delegate?
 * A: I expect to be reviewing some lists. As a delegate, I cannot both review and promote a list, as that could create a conflict of interest. So on lists that I have commented on, I would leave the promotion to another delegate. As there wouldn't be too many delegates, I will not review very many lists, but I do expect to be doing a few here and there. Delegate or not, a user commenting on a list provides an insight into how they think that the list could be improved. On all of the lists I have nominated for FLC, I've seen at least one delegate comment on them. I haven't seen anyone become influenced by the opinion of a delegate before, but that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't happen. I think that it would be best for a delegate to comment on a list only if it's essential (i.e. something that has not been picked up on by other reviewers), or if there's a lack of comments on a list.


 * 10. VoxelBot stops operating. It is now up to you as delegate to manually archive nominations. How do you archive an unsuccessful FLC nomination?
 * A: I would follow the procedure that is outlined here. I would close the the FLC discussion using the specified templates and then update the talk page.


 * 11. Are you happy with the current FL criteria? If not, which parts (if you're okay with telling us)? What would you change or improve?
 * A: I am quite content with the current FL criteria. If I had to change or improve one thing, I would make the stability attribute more specific in the sense of what defines "significantly from day to day". I feel like, in some cases, people have their own definition of what a significant change would be.


 * 12. Are you aware of the majority of conventions, guidelines, policies and MOSes that relate to List articles?
 * A: I am aware of most – if not all – conventions, guidelines, polices and styles relating to lists.


 * Links for SchroCat:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated processes (FLC, FLRC)?
 * A: I have written thirteen FLs (three of which have been TFLs, one scheduled to run soon, with one more up for nomination). I have reviewed a number of others—although not nearly enough, (10 – 20 ish?)


 * 2. Why do you believe you'd make a good delegate?
 * A: I'm online regularly and have a fairly good eye for detail for reviewing purposes. I think I am fair, and can take personal preferences and foibles out of the equation in most situations, seeing the bigger picture where appropriate. I'm happy to plough on through a seemingly mountainous workload, while still keeping standards high.


 * 3. Are you aware of the procedures on closing FLC/FLRC candidates?
 * A: In practical terms: only from the point of view of the nominator! I am aware of the theory (as outlined here) and bits of the practice behind the rest, and would be happy to familiarise myself with all the usual steps and pitfalls of the processes.


 * 4. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
 * A: I'm quite active every day. I'm on most days for a minimum of three to four hours, often much longer. Weekends are a little more patchy (family commitments), but I can still manage at least two hours a day at weekends. I live in London, so work to GMT: I normally get in an hour or so before work (8am – 9am) and then drop in sporadically during the day (I have a tab open for Wiki throughout the day) before getting in a few more hours in the evening.

Additional question from Hahc21
 * 5. How would you assess consensus when closing a FLC candidate? Let's say we have a nomination with four support and two oppose votes. All the comments from the opposers appear to be addressed but the users who opposed have yet to revisit their votes. However, two weeks have elapsed since the last comment was made, and it's time to close the nomination. Which action would you take?
 * A: There are a few steps I'd take, depending on the circumstances.
 * Firstly I would check out who has supported, and whether they are just a drive-by friend who has left no points to address. I'd also see who has opposed and whether their points were valid; if they are valid, has the nominator dealt with them properly.
 * If I think the comments of the opposers have been dealt with, I'd drop a talk page message onto their talk pages. I'd monitor for a few days to see if they come back to close their comments. If their comments have not been dealt with, I'd prompt the nominator.
 * Next I'd see if the list is stable, or if there is any other reason why people have not decided to review this, rather than just being too specialised an area to attract the numbers.
 * If, after all the above we're still left with 4 v 2 (all of which are valid votes), then I'd check myself to see if there is any reason not to pass the article, and then pass. The pass, however, depends on whether the comments from the opposers have been dealt with or commented on satisfactorily.

Additional questions from The Rambling Man
 * 6. What three things would you do to improve FLC?
 * A: The main problem with FLC is a long-standing one, and one that affects other areas of the project: a lack of reviewers. We're all volunteers, and forcing people to go down a particular pathway to overcome problems will always find opponents (so policies such as "Your list will only pass once you have reviewed at least one other list" etc are non-runners). Having said that's the main problem, things are not too bad, with 15-20 (ish) articles promoted every month and only a few dropping off the end through a lack of consensus. The other main area that must be upheld—or strengthened—are the standards of FLs, which should be equal to, or better than, our other featured content.
 * A 'cheat sheet' for new nominators that translates the spartan criteria into an easy-to-read practical guide of what and what not to do before nominating to ensure the best pathway to the highest-quality articles. A similar set of guidelines could also be drawn up to help new (and some existing) reviewers to ensure the highest standards are reached for list articles;
 * It may be worth thinking about a reviewer push, to bring in some fresh reviewers (probably best done after the reviewer guidelines are put together). An editorial in Signpost to publicise the push, with a co-ordinated set of postings onto the discussion pages of the projects most notable for FLs (Cricket, Film, cyclones etc);
 * For those articles that fail, I'd propose a two-week embargo on returning, in order to sort out the remaining issues. (There should be at a degree of delegate discretion, with those who have failed through lack of reviewers able to return more quickly).


 * A couple of separate thoughts on the TFL:
 * 4. If there are two (possibly more) slots for TFL, some integration between the closure process of an FL and a nomination for TFL, even if that integration is just a note on the nominator's page.
 * 5. If TFL remains at just one a week, I'd propose widening the number of slots to 15: ten is just too few sometimes.


 * 7. What would you do to improve TFL and would you push for a second slot on the main page?
 * A: To improve the process I'd probably (and shamelessly) steal a couple of ideas from TFAR:
 * Introduce—or at least clarify and publicise—the criteria needed for a TFL
 * Introduce a clear method of nominating an article for a relevant date; as per TFA, it should be possible to split between a date-specific and general slot. It's possible to keep an eye on the month ahead through Bencherlite's summary chart.
 * Proactively identify future lists against dates for a potential TFL, informing the main editors of the possibility.


 * Yes, I probably would press for at least a second slot, if not more: with just one weekly slot we denigrate FL output behind the TFA and TFP with their daily output; the FAs and FPs are vitally important to the project, but so are FLs, not to mention sounds portals and topics. We have enough existing FLs to keep us going for some time, and more than enough going through on a weekly basis to cope with the doubling of front page output. The current main page redesign seems to be a good place to put forward the call to for additional slots.

Additional questions from Matthewedwards
 * 8. Are you prepared to close a nomination as unsuccessful when it has a number of opposes, but which you feel should be promoted?
 * A: If the opposes are based on valid criteria, or that their valid concerns have not been addressed, then the consensus of the reviewers should overrule my own opinion. However, if the opposes were put down without reasoning (a drive-by oppose for no good cause), or if the comments left by an opposer have all been dealt with, then it would be better to contact the opposer and ask them to confirm if their opinion still stands. If they still stand by their oppose, then the consensus to promote is not there. In practice I'd probably check with a couple of other delegates whether they also consider the list should be promoted: if others think it unworthy and I think its passable, then my radar may need some refining!


 * 9. A first-time nominator has started an FLC, but they've forgotten to transclude it at WP:FLC. A month has passed, it's had no comments, but it's been brought to your attention by a third editor. What options do you have in dealing with this, and what would you do with it?
 * A: I'd advise the original nominator to withdraw the nomination and re-nominate, remembering this time to transclude. I seem to remember there being a method for ensuring the original nomination does not appear in the article history, although that's a judgement call as to whether that's the appropriate step or not.


 * 10. VoxelBot stops operating. It is now up to you as delegate to manually archive nominations. How do you archive a "kept" FLRC nomination?
 * A: As far as I remember it’s a three step process:
 * Transclude the discussion to the "Kept" section of the removal log;
 * Update the Featured list log;
 * Cross fingers that GimmeBot completes the closure with the talk page updates. (If it doesn't, then update the talk page, archive the FLRC page and add a closure box.)


 * 11. What will you do to bring reviewers to a 4-week-old nomination sitting at the bottom of WP:FLC with just two reviews?
 * A: I'd see who the reviewers may have been for any similar subjects and ask them if they would like to also look at reviewing this list. A talk page note to a few of the regular reviewers to see if they have time and interest (with no strings attached if they say no!) could all help generate a little more interest to get this over the line. If these steps fail, then the nomination will have to be failed after having stalled.


 * 12. Being a delegate of FL doesn't mean just closing a nomination and moving it to a log page so besides FLC and the log pages, name another FL-related page that a delegate has to look after/babysit/edit on a regular basis.
 * A: WP:FLRC is an obvious one to watch, as is WP:TFLS, as well as the FFL, when the occasion arises. On top of that, an eye on PR to watch for upcoming problematic lists is advisable. In terms of ongoing watching, the various templates—FLC-instructions and FLpages—and other instruction pages are worth watch-listing for unwanted changes.


 * Links for PresN:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated processes (FLC, FLRC)?
 * A: I've written 35 Featured Lists, of which 1 has been selected as a TFL. I try to review several candidates every time I post a new FLC myself, though I haven't kept track of the exact number.


 * 2. Why do you believe you'd make a good delegate?
 * A: I've been working on Featured Lists in a few areas for several years now (my first one was in May 2010), and have been keeping abreast of the current standards for lists in different areas for the same amount of time so that I could responsibly review FLCs. I've also been an Admin for 3 years (since November 2010). I enjoy keeping processes run smoothly and staying on top of things in a timely fashion- I know how frustrating it can be for nominators to have a nomination sit there without a delegate being able to look at it when the process gets bogged down.


 * 3. Are you aware of the the procedures on closing FLC/FLRC candidates?
 * A: I've read through all of the FLC/FLRC closing procedures, and have helped malformed nominations before. I've also closed a couple of FTCs once, which is a similar process in many ways.


 * 4. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
 * A: I usually have a tab open to Wikipedia at all times, even if I'm not actively editing, and check it fairly frequently; I'm usually active 9AM-6PM UTC+7, with occasional checks later in the evening.

Additional question from Hahc21
 * 5. How would you assess consensus when closing a FLC candidate? Let's say we have a nomination with four support and two oppose votes. All the comments from the opposers appear to be addressed but the users who opposed have yet to revisit their votes. However, two weeks have elapsed since the last comment was made, and it's time to close the nomination. Which action would you take?
 * A: Well, as in all things context matters- are these opposes drive-by opposes that aren't based on real FLC criteria? Lets, however, assume that they were legitimate opposes with real concerns that the nominator addressed. The first thing that I would do would be to ask the opposers on their talk pages if their concerns have been addressed to their satisfaction- it's quite possible that the nominator thinks they've cleared up the issues but the opposer would disagree.


 * If a week or so goes by without a response, then I would look into it myself if the nominator addressed all of the concerns satisfactorily. If reading into the opposes was just a case of making sure the boxes were all checked, then I'd be fine with promoting the nomination (assuming they addressed everything); however, if it was more a subjective determination to the point where I felt I was acting as a reviewer, then I would instead state myself as a reviewer in the nomination, take over the points that the opposer had raised and why the nominator had/had not addressed them, and ask another delegate to close the nomination instead- it's not appropriate for delegates to both close and review nominations. If I was still working as the closer, I would pass the nomination if the opposing comments had been addressed; if they were not (meaning that the opposes still stood), I would allow the nominator more time to address my reiterated opposing comments, failing the nomination only if they are unable to do so.
 * Just a comment. Delegates can review a nomination and promote/archive it as long as they didn't cast a vote. Usually, delegates/directors (mostly Giants and Rambling, I rarely do that) leave some comments on things they catch on a nomination before promoting the list. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, TRM left a couple non-review comments on every one of my nominations, I think, but I feel like the line he drew between what was a non-voting comment and what was a review was higher than I'm personally comfortable with. I get into this a little below with Q 12, but I draw a distinction between a few style comments or easy fixes, and substantive issues with the list which, while not too hard to fix, make me feel like my comments are a full review. -- Pres N  05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from The Rambling Man
 * 6. What three things would you do to improve FLC?
 * A:
 * The primary problem I see with FLC right now is that nominations take so long to get finished. This is due to lack of reviewers of course, and is the same problem that affects other featured processes project-wide. I don't think that FLC should implement QPQ reviewing- FLC isn't a place for short, uninformed reviews, and I feel mandating reviews per nomination pushes those. Instead, I'd try to institute a talk-page system- a possibly-automated system whereby nominators are reminded that there are X nominations ahead of them in the line that don't have 3 reviews yet, and that the more reviews they give the faster their nomination will get noticed by other reviewers. I think encouragement/incentives works better than mandating reviews.
 * I would create a sample guide for FLCs with commonly-raised objections to nominations and how to avoid them- for example, it's quite common for nominators to run afoul of WP:ACCESS, simply because most editors never hear of it until they come to FLC, and I think it would be helpful for nominators to see an example of how col scopes should be added to a table, for instance. Nothing too overwhelming- there's a lot of possible objections out there- but something to help make nominating things at FLC less daunting for new nominators.
 * I don't think that it helps that the editors most interested/active in the FLC process are restricted from officially reviewing, since they are delegates/directors. Since after this election we'll have more active delegates, I'd like to see an official system whereby a delegate can announce that they are going to be the closer for a specific nominations, clearing up the other delegates to review FLCs.


 * 7. What would you do to improve TFL and would you push for a second slot on the main page?
 * A: I'd try to move TFLC closer to the TFAC process- with a set number of nominations that could be on the page at a time, and an eye towards nominating for specific dates, though I'd rather see a 4/4 split of general submissions/specific dates, rather than TFA's 2/5 split. I'd also set up a system to remind/inform nominators at FLC when their submission passes that they can nominate their shiny new FL for TFL, and that they should !vote on other submissions there. I'd definitely push for a second slot; TFL has been going strong for quite a while now on a one-a-week schedule without any significant problems, and has long since left the experimental stage. I think the main-page regulars are comfortable with it now, and I notice that they're not raising any complaints about it in their perennial main-page redesigns, instead treating it like a standard part of the page. We're not going to run out of FLs for the main page anytime soon, so I'd like to bump it up to a Monday/Friday thing.

Additional questions from Matthewedwards
 * 8. Do you feel there is an abundance of nominations from certain categories such as sports or music? If so, do you think this could be what contributes to "reviewer fatigue", seeing the same types of lists over and over? What might be done to combat that?
 * A: There is an abundance of nominations from a few categories, but that's just the way it is- people are going to work on what they want to work on, and nominate those works. If that's causing reviewer fatigue, then we should try to encourage people outside of those projects to also nominate lists, rather than put barriers against sports/music FLCs. It might help to find active editors/projects who work on lists but don't submit anything to FLC and suggest to them that they should.


 * 9. A nominator is blocked or banned midway though a nomination. What would you do with the nomination?
 * A: Well, I'm assuming the block is for a significant amount of time here. First I'd see if anyone else can pick up the nomination- did anyone else contribute heavily to the list? Is there an active wikiproject associated with the list I can ask? Once I've tried asking around if anyone will take over the nomination, if there is no one else then I'd close the nomination as failed- without a nominator to address comments, there isn't much left to do.


 * 10. VoxelBot stops operating. It is now up to you as director to manually archive nominations. How do you archive a "remove" FLRC nomination?
 * A:
 * First, untransclude the FLRC from the main FLRC page, with an edit summary stating that the nomination resulted in a delisting.
 * Then, transclude the nomination at the monthly FLRC log, aka Featured list removal candidates/log/October 2013
 * Pull the list from WP:FL, updating the counts as necessary
 * Add the list to WP:FFL in the same section, again updating the counts
 * Update Featured list log
 * That was all the stuff you'd have to do anyways, but since the bot is down: Stick the archive template on the nomination page itself (a la this close)
 * Remove the FL star from the list
 * Update the list's talk page, with the FLRC in the articlehistory template, the FL tag removed, and the wikiproject assessments adjusted


 * 11. Generally, lists are a niche subject. What will you do to promote FLC and bring in more nominations and more reviewers overall?
 * A: I read a lot of articles on Wikipedia, so I'd like to message editors of lists that I see that are pretty good who haven't made any FLC nominations that they should clean them up and nominate them. As I said above, I'd also like to see another main page day, and I think the extra exposure can push editors into nominating lists. As I also said above, I'd like to be a bit more proactive in suggesting to current nominators that they review other people's nominations, so that we can be a bit more self-sustaining.


 * 12. Are you prepared to promote a list that has the required support, but which you don't like, be it for layout, content, prose, whatever?
 * A: If I don't feel a list is up to snuff, in that I would oppose if I was a reviewer, then I don't feel comfortable promoting it. If it's just a couple small concerns, I may post them and then promote when they're done, but if there's some major revisions that need to be done, I would instead note myself as a reviewer rather than a delegate and give the list a full opposing review, and let another delegate close the nomination- that's part of the reason we have multiple delegates.


 * Links for Vensatry:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated processes (FLC, FLRC)?
 * A: I've written 17 Featured Lists, of which one has appeared in the TFL section. I've saved two FLRCs and normally review at least one candidate every time I open up a nomination. Although I don't have an exact count on the number of lists I've reviewed, it must be slightly higher than 17.


 * 2. Why do you believe you'd make a good delegate?
 * A: I'm online regularly and have a fair understanding about the process. I personally feel that I'm good in reviewing FLCs, and above all I try to ensure the standards are met with the nominations before lending my support.


 * 3. Are you aware of the the procedures on closing FLC/FLRC candidates?
 * A: I have a very vague understanding about the process. However, I would make myself familiarise with the process.


 * 4. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
 * A: I'm on most of the time, mainly in the morning and starting from evening till late night (UTC +5:30). I'm highly active on weekends.

Additional questions from The Rambling Man
 * 5. What three things would you do to improve FLC?
 * A: The most important will be tying to reduce the number of backlogs. This can be achieved by asking the nominator to review at least one list upon opening an FLC, provided they've written at least one FL. For new nominators, I'd suggest them to go for a PR before coming here as most of the first-time nominations are unsuccessful and quite time-consuming. Secondly, I'd try to have reviewers to do a separate check for plagiarisms and copy-vios. Finally, I'd try to bring in a system not to encourage drive-by supports, which has become prevalent these days.


 * 6. What would you do to improve TFL and would you push for a second slot on the main page?
 * A: I don't have a clear-cut answer to this question as I'm not much into TFLs. What I can notice is not many successful nominators are keen to have their works listed on the main page. So best thing would be leaving a note to successful nominators upon completion of the reviews.

Additional questions from Matthewedwards
 * 7. Do you expect to be reviewing lists during your time as delegate? If so, how will you do it while staying neutral? Do you think a FL delegate reviewing lists at FLC could be seen to be pushing their own ideals of a Featured List on to the nomination? Could others be influenced by what you've said in a review, as if it's more official than a review by a non-delegate?
 * A: I'll be reviewing some nominations for sure, but I'd normally restrain myself from taking up reviews for topics I'm not comfortable to deal with. I'd also make myself sure that I don't promote/archive a nomination which I review. I've come across a few users who try to push their own ideas on some minor aspects. On such instances, I would advise them to follow the standard design each list is based upon. From my experience, I've not seen any reviewers getting influenced by the delegate's opinion and I think that would not happen at least in the near future.


 * 8. Are you prepared to close a nomination as unsuccessful when it has a number of opposes, but which you feel should be?
 * A: If the oppose comes from a reasonably good number of experienced reviewers who are much comfortable with the topic, and if the nomination violates at least one criteria, I'd go for a quick closure.


 * 9. Are you happy with the current FL criteria? If not, which parts (if you're okay with telling us)? What would you change or improve?
 * A: I'm okay with the criteria, but it looks like leaving out a major point. Since this is not an FAC we would like to have all of the major points covered. This isn't followed in some cases like filmos and award pages especially for actors who don't have a comprehensive listing of their works/awards published by reliably third party-sources.


 * 10. Are you happy with the FL/FLC process? If not, which parts (if you're okay with telling us)? What would you change or improve?
 * A: I'm happy with the process, but I think some changes are not noticed at times. Something like a user having more than two nominations listed at one time even if two of them gets a great deal of support should not happen.


 * 11. A nominator is blocked or banned midway though a nomination. What would you do with the nomination?
 * A: If the user is blocked for an indefinite period of time or SPIs I would immediately close the nomination. However, if they are blocked for minor reasons such as edit-warring, I would consult with other major contributors who are willing to participate in the process. If that doesn't work well, I would close the nomination as unsuccessful.


 * Links for Vibhijain:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated processes (FLC, FLRC)?
 * A: I have worked on 8 Featured Lists (6-7 of them were nominated by me); one of them also came on the TFL column. I have a good experience in reviewing FLCs, specially the ones related to Cricket and India. One of the lists created by me is currently a FLC, and I am planning to nominate an another list when the first one gets substantial support. The planned one, if passed, will be my first non-cricket related FL.


 * 2. Why do you believe you'd make a good delegate?
 * A: I am a regular editor and familiar with the FL processes. Featured Lists are one of the most interesting things I find on Wikipedia, and I believe that I have the experience needed to become a good delegate.


 * 3. Are you aware of the the procedures on closing FLC/FLRC candidates?
 * A: I am quite familiar with all this guidelines, but since I have never done this so I will like to again have a look at them in case I am chosen as a delegate.


 * 4. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
 * A: I am quite active on Wikipedia, and I check my watchlist almost after every 15 minutes even when I am on some other site. I am generally online for 2-5 hours on school days. I plan to buy a smartphone in 1-2 weeks, so the time I spend on Wikipedia can go a little higher in future. However being a student, I am rarely online during my exams.

Additional questions from The Rambling Man
 * 5. What three things would you do to improve FLC?
 * A: The most important thing we need to do is to increase the number of reviewers. Many lists with no problem don't get promoted because there is a lack of reviews. This can be demoralizing especially for someone whose first FL nomination don't get promoted due to such reasons. Reviewing a FLC is a much straightforward work than reviewing a FAC, but still this problem is less visible in the case of the latter. The best solution to this, in my view, would be something similar to WP:GARC. Although we will need some guys familiar with reviewing for this, I believe that this is a good way to ensure that each nomination gets sufficient reviews. As of Quid pro quo, I don't think that it will work on FLCs as someone who might have worked on dozens FLs might not be comfortable in reviewing one. We can even start a similar program for guys who want to write FLs, but his will require good amount of experienced editors.


 * Another way to ensure sufficient reviewing is the one adapted by WP:PR. We can mark those FLCs which haven't received substantial support or oppose. If the number of such FLCs exceed a certain number, we can place a backlog tag on the top of the page. This can, to some extent, attract those editors who like to deal with backlogs. We can also create a list where anyone interested in reviewing may list him under the topics he can review. Then anyone who nominates a list belonging to that topic can contact that reviewer and inform him about his nomination.


 * The last thing we need to ensure is the quality of FLs. We need to make sure that only those lists are promoted which pass all the criteria. This can be done by ensuring 1-2 complete reviews, which tests the list on all the criteria. We can make some templates like this ones, which would organize the review, and ensure that the list is reviewed taking all criteria into consideration.


 * 6. What would you do to improve TFL and would you push for a second slot on the main page?
 * A: We need to make an exact mechanism by which lists are chosen for TFL. Just like TFA, we need to judge the lists on different points giving different importance to each criterion, so that the best of the best gets on the limited slots we have. This would be something which will require some extensive discussion so that we can come up with a nice method of choosing the lists.


 * When we are talking about extra slots on the main page, we need to take care about the pace at which new FLs are coming. This rate is pretty slow than its potential, but still we can easily manage a second slot. We can bring this proposal on an appropriate page. Once we get a second slot, we can increase the allowed number of nominations for TFA to 20.

Additional questions from Matthewedwards
 * 7. Generally, lists are a niche subject. What will you do to promote FLC and bring in more nominations and more reviewers overall?
 * A: I generally contact the editor if I find a list capable of getting through FLC. Watchlisting the Lists subpage of WP:PR is quite helpful as most lists put up there are capable of becoming a FL after some tweaks.


 * As of the reviewers, I have already said it above that we need something like WP:GARC. However since it would aso require some experienced editors, I think a page where all interested reviewers can list them under the topics they want to review will be helpful. A nominator can inform all those reviewers and this will be a good way to get reviews. Many editors working on cricket lists, including me, actually use this way and it works.


 * As of promoting FLs, we need to make the readers and the readers aware of it. Most of the newbies learn about FAs and FPs through the Main Page, and increasing the presence of FLs on the main page is a necessity.


 * 8. Are you aware of the majority of conventions, guidelines, policies and MOSes that relate to List articles?
 * A: The foremost policy for FLs is WP:FL?. The other policies or guidelines about which one should be familiar with are WP:LISTNAME, WP:NCLL, MOS:LIST and key Wikipedia policies (like neutrality, references, WP:!, etc.) One also needs to be familiar with the 3b criterion, because it is, in my opinion, the most confusion criterion for someone new to FLC. I have even observed editors have different interpretations of this criterion.


 * 9. Besides FLC and the log pages, name another FL-related page that a delegate has to look after/babysit/edit on a regular basis.
 * A: WP:TFL and WP:FLRC are very important pages and have to be looked after regularly. The logs have to be updated after passing/failing a nomination or removal candidate. Other FL-related pages should also be watchlisted to monitor the edits made to them.


 * 10. A first-time nominator has started an FLC, but they've forgotten to transclude it at WP:FLC. A month has passed, it's had no comments, but it's been brought to your attention by a third editor. What options do you have in dealing with this, and what would you do with it?
 * A: Since it is a nomination by a first-time nominator, the list might not be up to the FL standards. This would make it eligible for deletion under maintenance works, and the nominator can be informed about that. All other subsequent works like removing the FLC tag from the main page have to be done after this.


 * However, if the above circumstances does not apply, we can generally transclude the list at WP:FLC, and add a note about this at the nomination page. The nominator should also be informed about this with an advice to transclude any other nomination in future.


 * 11. VoxelBot stops operating. It is now up to you as director to manually archive nominations. How do you archive a successful FLC nomination?
 * A:
 * Close the discussion mentioning that it has passed and remove it from WP:FLC.
 * Update the FL, Promotion and Closure logs
 * Pages like WP:GO which list new featured content also have to be updated.
 * Update the talk page of the list and add a star to the list.