Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Windswept Adan/archive1

Welcome to FAC
Hi and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect
 * As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing in addition to all of the usual requirements.
 * You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers
 * Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion.
 * Remember that reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article.
 * Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article.
 * Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process
 * Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side.
 * Reviewing other FACs also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Good luck with your nomination.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Gog the Mild, thank you for the welcoming words! This ping initially gave me a scare; I thought I'd done something wrong on the nomination itself and that the archive containing the comments had been wiped. Glad to see that isn't the case.
 * I've read over what you've written, and I thank you again for your remarks. Thank you for the good luck wishes, and I hope you have a great weekend! joeyquism (talk ) 15:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild: I've come to realize that I do have a few burning questions about the FAC process as a newbie:
 * What is considered canvassing with respect to FACs? Is requesting reviews against the guidelines/looked down upon, even if done in a general, non-partisan manner? If not, what is the right way of going about requesting reviews? Additionally, is quid pro quo banned, or simply not an expectation?
 * An extract from my boilerplate on Finding Reviewers: "Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article." Spamming large numbers of editors with requests is unlikely to be well received.
 * What is the general number of support messages (without outstanding opposition and excluding source/image reviews) that is required for a nomination to succeed? I've seen something to the tune of four prose supports alongside a source and image review + copyvio check for new FAC nominators, and as low as three prose supports with source and image review for more experienced users who have succeeded at multiple FA nominations. Does this sound about right?
 * How long is a piece of string? The bare minimum is three general supports plus the usual other bits. That is unlikely to be considered sufficient for an editor's first nomination. Plus, say I with c. 550 reviews worth of experience submit 2,000 words of queries and comments and once these have all been addressed then support, while another editor who has not previously contributed to FAC comments "Great. I love Aoba. I have read through the article and think it should be promoted"; one is likely to be given more weight by the coordinators than the other.
 * Generally how long is the waiting time for candidates to be passed or failed? Note that I am not trying to seem impatient here; just wondering about the full timeline.
 * Depends on on how fast supports etc are gained. Usually a nomination is reviewed after three weeks: if it has no or little support it is likely to be archived; if it has four or more solid general supports plus the other bits it will be considered for promotion. Anything older than 12 weeks is well into borrowed time territory. So, 3-12 weeks. Ish. Bearing in mind that the coordinators all have real lives and other things they do on Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your guidance, and I hope to hear back from you soon. joeyquism (talk ) 22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)