Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Aphthous stomatitis/archive1

Post-archiving discussion

 * There is absolutely no grounds to close this RV- since no-one has even stated whether the article will get promoted or not. I am not going to wait for over a month just to have you close it for no reason. 188.31.213.86 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree with it but I gave the reasoning above and it's in accordance with the FAC instructions. The coordinators will often archive reviews with little commentary -- certainly without enough to determine consensus to promote -- that have been open this long. If you want to discuss it then you're welcome to do so at the FAC talk page but please don't go around a process without attempting to gain consensus to change that process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WTF? How exactly does an article become FA then? Also, I can see many current FA nominations which have been waiting for way longer than this one. Your action makes no sense to me. I spent many, many hours of work on this article in preparation for FA. 92.40.94.150 (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some other reviews may indeed have been left open longer than this one but that's generally because they are active, i.e. people have posted comments very recently, and/or there are some clear declarations of support for promotion. You're not the only one who's spent many hours on an article; lots of other editors do as well and those don't always get promoted to FA either. This is an assessment process that depends on reviewers. The coordinator is there to keep the process on track and to judge when the review has reached consensus for promotion -- or not. Aside from the instructions (and link to the FA criteria) at the top of the WP:FAC page, you can get an idea of how articles gain promotion by looking over the Featured logs, e.g. this month's. Conversely you can review the Archived nomination logs‎, e.g. this month's. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have had issues with IP's edits on this article (and still have them, as to the edit-warring over an effort to undo establish 2-column format of refs). And I'm concerned when an editor, as IP has done, edits in a manner that makes it unclear whether one is talking to one editor or many ... on the same topic, as that impairs ability to gauge consensus.  All that said, I do not think this FA should be closed at this point in time, and think it should remain open for further consideration, and support IP on that point. Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be much easier to communicate if the IP just set up a user name like most other people who engage in the FAC process, but that's not why this was archived. FACs don't remain open indefinitely and we need interested parties to review when they're open. The archive stands unless you'd like to get a second opinion from my colleague, the other active FAC coordinator, GrahamColm. In any case, per the FAC instructions that I keep harping on, the nominator can bring the article back to FAC in two weeks and have another go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want people to use dynamic IPs then fix the bullying culture which allows people to harass editors' talk pages with impunity. Excuse me if I don't want to be constantly pestered by idiots and wish to focus instead on building content. And for the record, you were the one who both started and perpetuated the edit warring, and it does not automatically make you correct if the other person happens to be an IP. And then there was the issue of you adding a bare url source and source without a page number to the article, which was at GA status at the time. I suppose you feel IP editors should have to clean up after you? To do this in an article about to go to FA, when one criterion stipulates stable edit history, is contentious behavior in my view.

This FA nomination situation is another facet of the bloated and broken bureaucracy. Wait 2 weeks then renominate the article and back to square one. Well completely arbitrary rules must be followed ofc, even if they are completely pointless. But at least the jobsworths get to feel important in their little fiefdoms. Never mind the observation that the potential reviewers are not going to see the nomination in these 2 weeks. Kind of self defeating tbh. 94.196.235.168 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)