Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/The Nets/Initiating a featured article review

The objective of WP:FAR is to review articles that are currently featured articles, and whether they should retain the status. The objective is to identify defiencies, and ideally the article will be brought to meet current standards, otherwise they will be removed.

The vast majority articles are sent to FAR not because they have declined in quality but because of the rise in the FA standards. Many articles that passed in 2006 would not pass current GA standards in their 2006-FA state. Most of the articles that are nominated at FAR were usually promoted 2–4 years before the FAR. In many articles little work is done after the original promotion to keep pace with rising standards, i.e., most people tend to not improve the article unless threatened with the confiscation of their star.

Official instructions
The official instructions for the FAR process can be seen at the top of this page. They elucidate the technical process of filing the FAR and informing the interested parties and so forth, and give a brief overview of the process.

Nomination and review
Basically what happens at FAR is that people tend to pick out [what they believe to be] the most deficient featured articles first (usually the ones with a severe lack of refs and sometimes many consecutive paragraphs without citations) and they make a very short nomination statement in maybe five (or even less) minutes. As the articles clearly fail the current standards, there is no need to spend 40 minutes analysing and writing up every subtle problem subtlely if nobody cares. Some people do write a detailed review but it can be a waste of time as in most cases, there is no response. It can also be rather futile to make the article all consistent and copyedit the prose if the article has black holes in the content.

As the article has usually not been improved in the 2-4 years since its promotion and is in such a state, there is a high probability that the FAR will not change the apathy towards the article. If this is the case then the article will be moved to the FARC voting stage and reviewers can just do a driveby "delist"; nothing else is needed really if the problems are so glaring that they can be diagnosed with a glance of the eye. The process is then more or less just like a simple AFD or PROD.

If someone does some fixes to get the basics in order and tries to save it, then a more detailed review and critique is required to elucidate subtle problems, if the people doing the fixing say that they can't see any more problems (or pretending to not see them) and are waiting for a complaint to prompt them to make any improvements.

From thereon in, the reviewing is more like FAC, as the article reasonably resembles a viable FAC candidate, with the reviewers pointing out subtler problems in greater detail. Ideally, as the article has been worked on, the more subtler points will also be addressed.

What to do during a FAR
A few tactics can be used by article writers/owners in dealing with FARs. These can vary because of the different set up of the FAR process in comparison to the FAC process. This is mainly due to consensus system on Wikipedia and the resulting incumbency/inertia factor.

In a FAC, the author of the article or the associated WikiProject needs to convince others that the article meets the criteria and that its status should be upgraded. If nobody is willing to review the article, then it cannot garner support and therefore cannot be promoted. On the other hand, an article cannot be demoted if nobody is willing to point out errors in it or recommend a delist.

Rioting/intimidation
This occurs among certain authors whose modus operandi is to bite or attack anyone who questions whether their articles deserve featured status. It is usually used by people who have a strong power base.

When this occurs, the author/owners usually claim that nothing is wrong with the article or assails anyone who questions the article as trolls etc. Sometimes filibustering is substituted instead. Clearly this strategy is less likely to work at FAC because the author would need to win over the reviewers but if they manage to intimidate critics away at FAR then because the article will stay as an FA due to a lack of response.

In this case, the reviewer should simply disengage with arguing with them and avoid repeating themselves or trying to convince the others to improve it, as it only plays into the hands of the stalling party. Simply indicating a "delist" at the FARC and pointing to the nomination statement is sufficient.

Dilatory/stalling tactics
FAC works on the basis of "actionable objections" whereby the nominator/author responds to requests for improvement by either implementing them or explaining why the proposed changes are not an improvement. Often, a reviewer will point out an example of a problem and ask the nominator/author to comb through the text and fix analogous examples. These are usually about using a consistent pattern, such as British or American English, consistent formatting etc., and can be fixed in a mechanical way by applying the case to all such examples.

As the nominator/author needs to fix these issues in order to have an oppose withdrawn and move their candidacy along, they will usually comply at FAC. However, at FAR the owner/WikiProject want to maintain the status quo and will sometimes try to slow done the work process in order to drive the reviewers away.

As a result, some authors/wiki projects will only fix the explicit examples given, by cutting and pasting the few suggestions, and come back and say that the issue has been rectified even though the example can be applied throughout due to repetitive mistakes of the same type. As most articles sent to FAR are years old and were written when standards were much lower, inconsistencies in style and other problems, are often rampant. Often, a large minority, if not a majority of sentences and citations have the same problems over and over. Despite this, some will only fix the given example and do nothing more, and ask for every explicit problem to be listed even though the pattern is easy to apply.

The reason for this tactic is do keep on nagging for the reviewer to list every problem and example solution, so that in effect, the reviewer would be fixing everything themselves by providing the fixes on a platter to be cut and pasted. However, the more likely result is that the reviewer would get bored and drop the case, allowing the article is kept even though it would be mauled at FAC and even though they would never try to nominate such an article at FAC because they would have to take the initiative if they want a star.

As above, reviewers should not feed people who engage in such tactics.

Fixing the article
In case of rioting, the article may go straight to FARC if the author/owner makes it clear that they do not want to alter the article. After all, lengthening a riot yields no benefit to the encyclopedia.

The ideal way of dealing with a FAR is to simply edit the article normally, to fix up any problems in comprehensiveness, sourcing, POV, and consistent formatting, etc. Doing so thoroughly will mean that the article is more likely to remain a FA as standards rise. Doing the bare minimum to skate by the reviewers' criticism or attempting to win by wearing them down will likely lead another user to see the article in the [relatively] near future and start another FAR. Trying to do the bare minimum may be attractive as due to the human condition, reviewers may feel a lot more reluctant to advocate a demotion of an existing FA that is 95% done than to object to the promotion of an equivalent article at FAC until some more improvements are made.

Pile-on keeps
...will be ignored if they fail to address concerns over failures to meet the featured article criteria. I know of quite a few groups who have a 100% automatic support/keep rate regardless of quality and it's hard to miss people who make a habit of flagrantly disregarding the criteria. There is one nation-state WikiProject out there with 100% support/keep rates among all FACs/FARs within their WikiProject, including one instance in which many one-line keep votes were lodged at FAR, all by members of this WikiProject, while everyone else advocated a delisting and pointed out that half the article was unsourced....

Conclusion
If there is steady work on the article, it tends to be kept in the FAR stage for a long time, sometimes even two months, if everyone is clearly happy with the status of the article, then it can be closed without moving to FARC. Even if it is moved to the FARC stage it will still be kept open for long periods (usually up to three months) if steady and substantial work is being done to address the concerns.

Frequently Asked Questions

 * What is the objective of FAR? Is it to remove or keep featured articles?

"The ideal outcome is that articles are improved so that they are compliant with the more stringent contemporary standards. However, in the ten weeks since the start of May, only 15% of the articles have been improved to the extent required for survival.

The process is supposed to hold FAs to current standards, so if the articles are not improved properly, then they are supposed to be removed. Sympathy keeps are not supposed to occur, although they have been hinted at in the past and may be impossible to eliminate entirely.

With ever rising FA standards, articles that are not pro-actively improved since their initial promotion, will find it more difficult to pass if no work is done before the FAR. The most effective way to save FAs is to take the initiative and look for ways to improve them on a regular basis."


 * Are reviewers or the nominator obliged to fix the article to bring it to modern FA standards?

"The most deficient FAs on WP at the moment are usualy three or four years old. With the rising standards on FAs today, it is too much work for one person to fix unless they are genuinely interested in the topic. Many articles of such age have many problems, such as a lack of comprehensiveness, uneven coverage and odd structure, apart from the most common problem of a lack of citations. These articles may need a complete rewrite, resulting the contents being 50%+ new. Often the most deficient FAs have not been touched in three or four years, which is an indication of a lack of interest in the topic.

If none of the remaining authors or members of the WikiProject cares, then it's pointless for the nominator to do any work unless they too are interested in the topic and are willing to do all the work themselves.

In early 2007 and before, people would pick a substandard FA that they were interested in and generally helped fix it with the help of the WikiProject and the original author(s), if still present. In those days there were many FAR regulars and they generally engaged in a joint-partnership for article improvement drives.

However this culture no longer exists. Some people who objected to their articles being questioned tried to kill off FAR (see the 2007 archives of WT:FAR) by rioting or driving off reviewers and some even mooted deleting FAR so that their FAs would be immune. The effect was that third parties rarely help in cleaning up FARs nowadays and as a result, articles are more likely to be removed, including the work of those who sought to weaken FAR."


 * Should reviewers and nominators feel guilty if they do not help to bring the article to modern FA standards?

"If the reviewer was obliged to fix the article then the original writer or owners would just sit there and force people to polish their stars for them. As there are so many hundreds of articles from the old days of lower standards, people would find it to be unrealistic for a small group of reviewers to rewrite hundreds of articles. If they were obliged to fix them, as some article owners appear to want judging by their use of "so fix it", then most would surely just turn a blind eye to deficient articles rather than having to fix it up for another user. Some article owners accuse FAR of being pointless bureaucracy and expect anybody who thinks the article is deficient to have to do it for them.

This would lead to a permanent and ever-growing gap in standards of FAs, with old articles not subject to modern criteria, which is considered by the community to be inappropriate. People like to take credit for work that they do, and the FAs that they write, so it is not unfair that if they want the trappings of a FA, they should be willing to work for it.

Nominating an article or advocating its removal is not a priority, and an act of vandalism or disruption. As the removal of the star is an indication that the article has not been improved to keep pace with standards, not that it has been "put down" etc.

If people are worried about the stigma of "knocking" an article, of purely questioning articles, they can be pro-active and improve featured articles in their field of interest; they cannot be expected to fix articles that they have no interest in or to ignore the problems if nobody who is interested in the article is willing to fix it.

Reviewers at FAC are not required to fix up the article, those at FAR cannot be expected to completely rewrite articles that are much worse if the interested parties have no desire to contribute. If there is a serious effort to fix the article, then in the spirit of collaboration, it is good to help out in an attempt to save the article, but again there is no obligation to do so. However, reviewers are expected to respond to queries for clarifications."


 * A prospective reviewer says "I know one reason that I am leery of participating much here is that I do not have time to save articles - to do so means basically doing the research that the original writer(s) did and more." (Real example)

"Per above, if reviewers were compelled or felt obliged to fix up the articles then we would have a situation where old articles would be FA for eternity regardless of quality because any critic would have to fix the article or put up with its unsatisfactory state while the author(s) can just sit there. There is nothing to be guilty about. The article does not actually get worse because the star is no longer there; it simply hasn't improved."


 * Is FAR as tough as FAC?

"In reality, the toughest reviewers spend all their time at FAC, so the critiques at FAR are in no way as difficult. There is also something of a psychological inhibition in that people are more likely to be firm in not wanting to downgrade and article if it is deficient by 5% but they are less worried about being firm and asking an article that is not yet featured to rise just a little more. Ideally this discrepancy should be minimised. Again, reviewers should not feel guilty; they are not actually making the article worse by removing a star, only the content determines its quality&mdash;many incumbent FAs are in a worse state than a lot of quick-failed GAs."


 * What is the best way to keep an article up to FA standards?

"Be pro-active. Always be on the look-out to improve articles. Do not wait until an article is so far behind that it is sent to FAR. The author is the person who has the ability to be their own toughest judge, so if they inspect themselves rigorously, everything will be fine. After all, for most topics, the author is usually the most knowledgable person. Thus, they will be the ones best placed to make the article as good as it can be, and if they keep this in mind and are always trying to improve, they will not have any trouble as they are the only ones who will know if the article is truly comprehensive, well researched and uses impeccable sources. These sorts of improvements are those that have to be done by the author or the associated WikiProject."