Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive1

Restart
Would it be better to throw the ongoing text into a collapsible table instead of removing it?Cptnono (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:FAC instructions; template limits affect the FAC archives, and collapsible tables don't help the load time of the page. It "is better" to get a complete peer review, lasting a month and and requesting input from multiple reviewers before coming to FAC; that is the best way to assure an article is well prepared for FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Thanks for the quick reply. I did get a peer review. FA was just more intense! Can we note on here that there were multiple supports already through the process? Cptnono (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A restart is a new FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Should this be archive 2, then? Just to make it clear to whoever decides this, there were 7 supports, 1 oppose, and 2 just comments yesterday. SandyGeorgia has a point though, the process included so many fixes that it may not have been typical.Cptnono (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be archive2; this is a restart of archive1, because the previous FAC had turned into a muddled peer review, and the article needs a fresh look from uninvolved reviewers. Archive2 would happen if this FAC were archived, and brought back in a few weeks. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, please do not edit war with me on a FAC; the point of a restart is to help you avoid another lengthy peer-review style FAC. Filling up the FAC page with off-topic commentary is not the way you want to go, and won't serve the FAC well. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't edit warring and don't worry I'm not going to revert a second time. I was reverting you removing comments since you aren't suppose to do that from my understanding. I think that is a talk page rule so I don't know if it applies to a project page. Kind of the principle. This is supposed to be a good process (it certainly has been fun improving the article so much) so sorry if I came across dicky.Cptnono (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you got that understanding, but it's common practice for FAC delegates to remove comments to talk as needed; it is in your and the article's interest that the FAC page not become
 * Everything I have read says that editors are not supposed to touch other editors comments. It also appears to be common practice. Like I said though, it is a project page and not a talk page so I'm not sure if that applies. As some feedback from you, edit summaries like "that is my decision" might not mean to come across poorly but it is easy to read a little heavy handed. I also don't see on your user page why you are the one to make that decision. I assume there is good reason but it comes across super confusing. Just something to keep in mind in the future.
 * I'm a little concerned that it looked like the article was ready per the amount of supports. I don't mind waiting and seeing what comes from another round I just hope it receives the same amount of attention (less peer reviewy this time, though).. Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't read WP:FAC? I'm sorry for coming across heavy handed, but it's not often that someone reverts me at FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not closely enough, obviously. That must have been a shock to see. Like I said above, this isn't supposed to be a frustrating process so no worries.Cptnono (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This might help; the FAC should proceed smoothly now. I left some edit summaries of cleanup needed in citations.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw that a few minutes ago while poking around on my own. That's right, sticking it to the man ;) I should be embracing the attentin not spiting in its face so it is appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, you can ask previous reviewers to revisit this FAC, provided you do so in a neutral manner. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No "canvasing", right? SandyGeorgia just restarted it a few hours ago so I don't mind waiting to see if any editors new to the article pop in. I honestly didn't expect so many reviewers in the original so who knows what will happen next?Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, Karanacs thought I had a good attitude then I turn around and revert one of the decision makers. I kind of find it funny in hindsight and I hope no one's feelings are hurt. I am a little ashamed that SandyGeorgia got to The Washington Post before I noticed it. Cptnono (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to worry about, Cptnono :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)