Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive65

Edit notice for FAs
Last month got the idea for an editnotice for all MilHist articles to try and minimize disruptive editing and  pointed to the one that WP:MED uses for articles under its purview :

Attention editors Management of multiple sclerosis is one of the English Wikipedia's featured articles. While it is open for editing like any other, it has gone through a community review process where it was checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the featured article criteria, including a consistent citation style. It is requested that you discuss significant changes of text or images on this article's talk page before editing.

As a medical article, this article must also comply with Wikipedia's medical content and sourcing guidelines.

Having cleaned up any number of badly-cited, unsourced or incorrectly formatted changes to FAs over the years, I think something like this would be a great idea for high-quality articles. The basic language of the MED editnotice would work fine for us although I'd add that date formats, EngVar, etc., should conform to the existing style of the article. Once we've established the exact language, I'd hope that Hawkeye7 could modify the FACBot to add it to new FAs and perhaps a task could be added to an existing bot to add it to the existing articles. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm 100% behind this. While I know our editors mean well, the top 1% or so of the articles that have an FA-Class rating and the bronze star need to adhere to certain standards, and I think it best that the community is notified upfront that these articles need to be maintained at a certain level so as to remain quality articles. I was unaware that MED had a template for this purpose, however since this fact was brought to my attention I am of the opinion that it will be a much needed and very welcome addition to FA-Class articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Years ago I would have said No. Now I've drifted from Purist to Pragmatist, esp. since this still does not prevent new editing. +S. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Fully behind this idea, though I'd suggest that the notice advises users to discuss a change on the article's talk page ( Talk: should work, right?), which has the benefit of inviting users to collaborate and possibility opening an avenue for them to learn about editing through discussion. G RAPPLE   X  00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be a pragmatic solution. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. Seeing the support here, perhaps we should seek broader consensus and start an WP:RfC with a concrete proposal? Wugapodes (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. The wording above has been taken and customised from WP:OWN, it has no shortcut to this section for edit summaries, perhaps it should?
 * While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner [[Image:LinkFA-star.png|14px]]) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. The article history template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the wording, though I would take out Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. as I don't think that's particularly relevant to editing. Because the text is Creative Commons, We must link to it for attribution purposes, but I believe we can provide attribution in the edit summary when we add it to pages. Wugapodes (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not suggesting that wording is used, just showing where it was derived from. An edit notice on the editing screen would need to be much shorter (and in big red letters!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   23:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm personally in favor of such a notice, I fear that some in the broader community might take it as implying article ownership, see for example this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Implications of article ownership might be an issue, but it seems from the discussion that the problem was the (now deleted) wording of the template which listed a particular editor. From the closer's comment, it seems like the community might be willing to think about particular wording for something along this line. Wugapodes (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If no editor is named then there is no ownership problem which is what WP:OWN stresses in relation to FA stewardship, any notice would relate to the community's wish to maintain high standards. I hope this idea is followed through, it might encourage me to nominate more articles for a standard that I tell friends is just about the only type of WP article that can be trusted to be accurate. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC bot problem?
I noticed on my previous FAC nomination the text on the article talk page did not update after the FAC nomination page was started, so a redlink was still left in place. I've now seen it happen on another nom, despite the nom page being active:


 * This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.
 * Please feel free to initiate the nomination.
 *  Also edit here and add to the top of the list. 

I thought this may be a problem with my PC, but I've purged the cache and it's still there, and another editor has also commented that it needs to be looked at. Anyone got any thoughts? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me; I suspect this is a local cacheing issue at your end. Try opening it in another browser. &#8209; Iridescent 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Odd. It's working OK now, but it wasn't a local caching problem: another editor pointed it out to me as a problem on their machine, and both my PC and tablet showed the redlink still in place. It looks like the bot is just running slowly, if it is a bot that makes the change. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Same happened to me with passenger pigeon. It solved itself after some time. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the bot has anything to do with this. I think it's a database lag issue on the server side. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll nod sagely in agreement, even though I don't understand anything after "it's a..."! Thanks to all for your thoughts. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A Nodder is something like a Yes-man, only lower in the social scale. A Yes-Man’s duty is to attend conferences and say “Yes.” A Nodder’s, as the name implies, is to nod. The chief executive throws out some statement of opinion and looks about him expectantly. This is the cue for the senior Yes-Man to say yes. He is followed, in order of precedence, by the second Yes-Man - or Vice-Yesser -, as he sometimes is called- and the junior Yes-Man. Only when all the Yes-Men have yessed, do the Nodders begin to function. They nod. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Image/source check request" section
What do others think about putting the image/source check request section on a different page and simply transcluding it here (similar to how GA reviews are transcluded on the article talk page)? The benefit is that editors who want to get notified of image and source check requests can get them separately from these talk page notifications by adding that page to their watchlist. Perhaps its not a big deal, but I think it could be a minor improvement. I created the page Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests with the current content, so if there's interest in trying it out, we can transclude it. Wugapodes (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, the current section seems a bit like a makeshift solution... FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fine. I always feel like I'm spamming everyone's watchlist when I edit that list, and cause a reduction in visibility for other matters that are posted here. and ? -- Laser brain   (talk)  00:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Image query
Is the requirement of image in an article mandatory for a Featured Article? Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, although there is an expectation that if an free-use image which would significantly increase understanding of the topic exists or could easily be created, that it be included. There are a fair number of historic figures for whom no photograph or drawing exists, for instance. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd is an example of an FA with no image. &#8209; Iridescent 13:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove FAR from list
Can we remove the FAR listings from the bottom of the FAC list? I recall that this was to be a trial of sorts, during SandyGeorgia's attempts to reform the FAR process. I haven't observed that it's been successful in drawing more attention to FAR listings, as I believe was the purpose. I do believe it's confusing for anyone scrolling through the master list to be suddenly in FARs. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I must admit I don't think it has increased traffic at all, so I can't argue for it to stay....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have commented on a couple of articles I wouldn't otherwise have been aware of... FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it should either be in the talk page box, or at the end of the project page listings, but not both, and I would favor the box.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the transclusion isn't helping FAR, then I think we should show some sensitivity to people with slower connections and older machines (and people with older eyeballs, such as myself) and reduce the size of the page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Movies/TV programmes and their plot sections
Should plot sections be referenced, or are they tolerated in FA criteria? Is this documented anywhere? --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is documented anywhere, but I think they should be referenced - e.g. to a film review. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The FA criteria don't go into that sort of detail; whether plot sections should be referenced or not would have been determined by the relevant wikiprojects I think. Personally I've never had an issue with the plot section alone being unreferenced as long as what's described there really is self-evident from viewing the work in question. Of course what is "self-evident" can be open to interpretation. In any case I don't know of a media article that failed FAC purely because the plot section wasn't referenced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * They're considered self-evident from the work itself to an extent—as in, the plot to Citizen Kane would simply be sourced to Citizen Kane itself so you don't need an inline citation for it. However, if there is any interpretation, or anything off-screen being mentioned, cite that to where it comes from. And if you can cite a basic plot summary to a secondary source, there's nothing to stop you doing so, but if it's just a summary of what's evident in the work itself that's not necessary. G RAPPLE   X  12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. There are a number of such articles at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page that I was struggling to assess, but I'm in a better place now. Thanks again. (And if you'd like to assess a couple of articles, please do!) --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Two week leave
What are the rules for waiving the two-week leave requirement? I am hoping for a 25th birthday WP:TFA for Emily Ratajkowski. Waiting 2 weeks would take me inside 90 days prior to the desired TFA date. Can I pursue FA one last time immediately?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a FAC coord of course, but maybe I can shed some light on the process. At first glance, it looks like Bollyjeff's last paragraph (in his section) offered a perfectly reasonable oppose rationale. I don't see any replies to that on the FAC page ... but maybe you made some changes directly to the article that you hoped would address his points? I would think that's the first problem to address, before it goes back to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bringing an article to FAC before essential work has been done doesn't speed up the process, it just makes for a longer and more complicated FAC. I'd say use the two weeks to get everything done to the article that you possibly can and aim for a short FAC. In my experience the long, article-building types of FAC usually end in archiving rather than promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

a.p.j. abdul kalam as a featured article
apj.abdul kalam article can be nominated as a featured article and it has all the things to be a featured article [User:Wiki tamil 100]
 * Well, not just like that please... It looks like you made your first edit to the article only yesterday -- per FAC instructions you should discuss with the major contributors before nominating any article for FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Resignation
Hi everyone,

I am retiring as a FAC coordinator as of today. I have already told Ian and Andy. My reasons are entirely personal and I have shared these with them. I am not retiring from Wikipedia and will continue to watch the virology articles (and others) and contribute the occasional FAC review. For the record, the FAs that I have promoted are listed here, and with one exception - about an overrated physicist in my humble opinion - I think my judgement was sound. After four years as a delegate, and nearly ten years on WP, I am deeply proud of all the writers and contributors that I have met here; particularly at FAC. I am tempted to list a few of these but knowing me I will forget someone, but I am sure you all know who I have in mind. I urge you all to continue to support our FA process - it sets the standard for all other contributions. The bar is high, this I know, but I hope that this will continue to be the case. One of the (many) things that have ensured the success of our beloved Wikipedia is our Featured Articles. Thanks to all the reviewers for helping me make the many, sometimes difficult, decisions to promote or archive. I have never kept a list of the latter, despite what some might think, I hate doing it. I know it is discouraging and might drive valuable contributors away, but little gives me more pleasure than seeing an archived FAC promoted and appear on the Main Page after the second or third time nomination. I will be 64 on May 1st and I will be expecting you all to wish me a happy birthday. I love you. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all you have done and for what you will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for setting a high standard of being a delegate, and for your cordial personal message, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work and best wishes for what is yet to come. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your work here is much appreciated and has been very valuable to the project; FAC is one of the core pieces of Wikipedia, and the coordinators are critical to FAC's success. I hope we get to see more of your article work here.  I'm going to go ahead and pre-wish you a happy birthday now just in case my leaky memory fails me in May; all the best!  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll say publicly what I've already said in private, that it's been an absolute pleasure working with you, Graham, and that while I'll miss your involvement in FAC coordination, I look forward to your further contributions to reviews and general editing. To echo Gerda, thanks for such a thoughtful signing-off message, too! Best Wishes, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything you've touched on Wikipedia was somehow better after your input. Cheers & happy editing in the future.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, take care and thanks for all the fish :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an unfortunate loss for FAC. Best of luck, Graham! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your great work in the role Graham Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Best wishes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your great contribution. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll miss you, Graham, good luck! Montanabw (talk)  08:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All the best for the future! Z105space (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the hard work Graham, and all the best. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You carried out your work with patience, fairness and good humour, a fine template for your successor. Thanks and best wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am saddened to read this, but understand. Graham has been an unsung star within the FA process and will be sorely missed. Thank you for all your work, guidance and fairness. You are leaving with the utmost respect of all concerned. Ceoil (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all you have done to keep FAC going. Enjoy your extra free time ;), and I hope you'll stay in touch here. GermanJoe (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work, Graham, and best of luck to future wiki and off-wiki endeavours. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work, and best of luck with your on and off wiki activities in the future! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been out of touch with FAC for a little bit, but your work has been admired from a distance. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work and patience! All best wishes, Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No WP:FA models?
According to Category:FA-Class fashion articles, there are currently no models at WP:FA. Is this correct? Has there ever been a model at FA? I ask because I am trying to get support at Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA. Are there FA-level model articles to look at?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K. At Featured_articles. I see three articles with the word model in the LEAD: Kirsten Dunst, Emma Watson and Deepika Padukone. I guess that category may be incomplete. I am going to figure out if the WP:FASHION people actually regard these people as models and determine why their category is not tagging them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All are essentially actresses - Dunst's modelling career seems to have ended by the age of 6, and she at least would not be notable as a model. In that respect they may not be the best models for your model FA. Johnbod (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, several well-known actresses were models first, e.g. Jessica Lange and Marilyn Monroe -- the latter is a recent FA and has a fair bit on that section of her life. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Core Contest
Hi all, The Core Contest is running again from May 15 to June 30. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator help please?
Can we get a coordinator to let the folk at Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1 know that my opinion there—which has been contradicted by three or four editors—will be passed over as "unactionable"? It appears to be causing undue anguish and seems to be eating up the discussion, despite my having tried to disengage. I have not opposed the nomination, and that seems to be causing issues for the nominator as well. If it helps, you can tell them I'm a troll who always ruins FACs this way and should be ignored. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Three editors there have pinged me today alone—it's getting obnoxious. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting as yet on the 'actionability' or otherwise of your review, CT, but I agree that pinging should be used judiciously and have said as much at the FAC page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

TFA: more noms needed
Of the 121 nominations for WP:Today's Featured Article during January–April 2016, only 31 were scheduled on the basis of requests as against 90 nominated by the coordinators. That is well below the more-or-less 50:50 rate that used to apply, in the days when there was often competition for dates.

This falling-off in participation reflects trends elsewhere in WP, not least at FAC where promotions now average less than 20 a month, and  PR which is a shadow of its former self. However, I'm not launching another "what's wrong with Wikipedia" forum; we all know (or imagine we know) the answer to that. I would simply ask editors who are still active at FAC as content creators or otherwise, to consider making nominations for the main page from time to time. If you're relatively new to the system and feel uncertain about what's involved, any of the TFA coordinators (see the WP:TFAR page) will be pleased to help. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nominated a bunch as I will then forget about it for a while. Will hunt around for some anniversaries on User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and hopefully others will follow suit in the weeks to come. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * TFA is a miserable experience, as is much else of WP, so no surprise. Eric   Corbett  23:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alas TFA is currently only accepting candidates from May 6, because 1 May 2016 is exactly 100 years since the commissioning of HMS Royal Oak (08), which was promoted to FA in 2007 but has not yet appeared on the main page. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the time to say so would have been four weeks ago, but perhaps rescheduling can be considered for a centenary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problems, my fault for not thinking of it earlier. The 77th anniversary of its sinking comes up in October, I'll nominate it then. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could we extend the range wherein dates can be nominated for? I have one for September, but little to do about it until some months pass. I see many other potential future candidates on the list that are hanging in limbo. FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can place it for a year in advance on WP:TFARP, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ps: I saw now that you did that, but I keep the line for other watchers. I haven't nominated lately after a few suggestions of "too old" articles that needed more work than could be done between nomination and appearance, also because I'm writing more myself now, - hint hint would love a review or two of Requiem (Reger), to have it in good shape for an anniversary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've stuck one in WP:TFARP, not sure it's much help, since it is almost a year off and by the time it comes close enough to nom I'm sure I'll have forgotten all about it. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will nom some after the weekend. I've been neglectful.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

On HMS Royal Oak, for some reason the date relation given in WP:FADC is not the commissioning centenary, nor the date of the sinking, but 17 November, the date of the launch in 1914. Normally I'd be happy to consider rescheduling for the centenary, but I've just looked at the article, and it's not in the best of shapes. It's nine years since its promotion, and unsurprisingly there are issues. These include uncited statements, dead links, sources of dubious reliability by current standards, incomplete references (publishers missing) etc. So it's doubtful if the article could be readied in time, and it may be more practical to work towards one of the other dates. More generally, as Gerda implies, it's usually not a good idea to nominate very old featured articles for TFA, as they all tend to share to some degree these negative features. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * IIRC, if you run AWB over a page, a full copy of its text gets stored off somewhere in your hard drive (eh, browser's cache most likely). Then 'twould be trivial to write a Python program that grabs all specific dates from all articles, and then makes a wikitable, sortable by date, that lists every article which mentions that specific date. At that point you'd need human eyes to see if the date in question is a significant date for that article, but still, if you were looking for August 23rd, you'd know where to look.... Would this be desirable to do, assuming everything I said above is still correct?  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd think that would be easier said than done; any article long enough to reach FA is almost certainly going to contain dozens of dates, since every citation to a newspaper will contain a publication date and every citation to anything online will have a retrieval date. Realistically you'd need to set up the script to exclude dates in templates to avoid overwhelming with false positives, but doing that would mean losing dates in infoboxes or written as date templates rather than as plaintext. As I used to berate Bencherlite about, TFA gets far too hung up on date relevance. Except in a very few cases like centenaries of significant events or TFAs scheduled to coincide with a specific notable event, I'm fairly confident that the readers don't even notice that the articles are running on 132nd birthdays or whatever. Most of the things which currently get selected for date relevance would probably be better off at On This Day rather than TFA, where the date relevance can actually be pointed out to the reader. &#8209; Iridescent 09:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but more noms also means more noms without specific date. - A friend, asked for his tools once, answered: "eyes and brain", and I think they are better for finding a date relevance than any table. - If a table, don't search the complete article, just the infobox where all dates should appear that deserve the qualifier "relevant", as the commissioning of the ship mentioned above. (I agree with the comment though that commissioning is not the most relevant date.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I heartily agree that date relevance is greatly overdone at TFA; for example the date of issue of a computer game, or of the opening of a few miles of highway, or of the birth of a long-forgotten Victorian cricketer, are not in my view notable anniversaries. The trouble is, these articles' creators often feel otherwise, and complain like hell when I ignore the dates when scheduling. There are enough thorny issues around TFA without my wishing to pick additional fights with disgruntled nominators, so I have tended to go along with their requests. But both Crisco and I are trying, gradually, to move away from date relevance except in genuinely notable instances. Meanwhile, as Gerda says, there is nothing to prevent non-specific date nominations, and to encourage this I've opened up a couple more slots on the WP:TFAR page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches is now eight years old and could/should be updated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rewrite rather than update, I feel. I'll take this on. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I dunno what people or groups are active these days. Would it be worthwhile to query WP:GOCE about starting a working group from among its members to select and copyedit potential candidates, perhaps a month ahead of an article's showtime.. or similar?  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it might be helpful to put a link on the main page under the blurb, saying "Why was this article chosen" or some such, with a few words "101th birthday" or "no connection to date" or similar on the other end of the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Glitches in openings of just-promoted FAs
In reviewing Featured Content for this week's Signpost, I had to go from blurb to actual article on three occasions to clarify.
 * In 2007 Coca-Cola 600, where's the boundary between spelling out numbers and using numerals? 400, sixteenth, 11, 107, 83, 342, fifty-one, twenty-nine, fifteen, twenty-four. Really? I haven't touched it, but someone needs to.
 * For another opening, I called one of the nominators to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isopogon_anethifolius&type=revision&diff=716706201&oldid=714345068 clarify] whether it's the family or the species that is located in the area specified.
 * And in the opening of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senghenydd_colliery_disaster&type=revision&diff=716706436&oldid=715045387 a third new FA], I hope I've resolved the clash of present–past tense (have I?).
 * In Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, the lead contains "15th-century oil", but later there's "15th century society", and "the 15th century images" (I've fixed those two, and added the hyphen to one of the two appearances of "mid 1430s"). One reference is "Campbell (1980), 14–5". Shouldn't that be "14–15"? "Master of the Legend of St. Ursula" ... google's ngram shows almost half of usage in books (up to 2008) is without the dot. ... is the article in AmEng? I don't see evidence that it is.

These openings may also end up on the main page. Please be careful. Tony  (talk)  10:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony, there are reasons why your voice is missed on FAC. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. I generally spotcheck articles for my own list of words/expressions/formats to watch before promoting but there will certainly be things I miss. Perhaps this post can serve as an example of things reviewers can look out for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is true, I notice Ian usually closed articles of mine with helpful suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at 2007 Coca-Cola 600 and have addressed the concern raised above. Z105space (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all of you for your quick replies. I'd love to be properly involved in this excellent forum, but community journalism is the drain now. Tony   (talk)  11:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Single quotes?
Curly and I both have questions about MOS and single quote marks. A suggestion on an additional use for them got added to WP:MOS (at MOS:SINGLE) last August, but I don't recall seeing this punctuation before at FAC ... has anyone else? Curly tried to follow the advice and almost wound up with "Utamaro (c. 1753–1806) made his name in the 1790s with his bijin ōkubi-e 'large-headed pictures of beautiful women' portraits, focusing ..." (his example in a current thread at WT:MOS), but that doesn't look right to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, no reply so I'm guessing no one remembers seeing the bijin ōkubi-e 'large-headed ...' punctuation at FAC. MOS now allows it, but it's goofy, and I'll fix it if I see it at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It does look silly. This might be one of those cases someone mentioned in that thread where this looks better: "Utamaro (c. 1753–1806) made his name in the 1790s with his bijin ōkubi-e, literally 'large-headed pictures of beautiful women' portraits, focusing ..." -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to avoid "literally", which far too often is used inappropriately. I suspect such cases are more common than people realize (look how quickly I turned up one).  Nobody at the MoS seems interested in tackling the issue, so I think I'll just ignore this part of the MoS. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant
Please see here and weigh in if you are so-inclined. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Core Contest
Hi folks, The Core Contest is on again, running from May 15 to June 30. Enter at The Core Contest/Entries. Cheers! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata and infoboxes
There's an RfC on Wikidata and infoboxes that people here might be interested in. SarahSV (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing
Something has arisen at the review of Catherine Zeta-Jones (article here) over sourcing. I'm a little out of touch on more recent developments at FAC, so a few more eyes on what counts as a RS would be useful. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to use it for uncontroversial information -- parent's names, movies she's appeared in, and so on. Beyond that I think it's going to be a judgement call in each case.  I looked at a couple of the uses in the article; the first one seems OK -- it's just using her place and date of birth, as far as I can see.  Can you point to an example you think should be removed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a particular problem with any of them; I think a few of them might need to go, but others are fine. However, I'm not sure about all of them and so I think more eyes would be a good thing. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Body not including introductory material from the lead
On the FAC for 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 I've commented that I think the body should include introductory material such as "The 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 was the third stock car race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series", instead of assuming the reader already knows this because they've read the lead. I have always assumed that if you cut off the lead, what remains should be a complete article. However, I see I didn't make this objection to 2006 Subway 500, which I supported at FAC last year, and now I'm wondering if others agree. Does the body of an article have to be able to stand by itself? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would expect everything in the lead to be covered in the article body, but occasionally there may be the odd fact that can be inferred from the body text, but not explicitly stated, that can be referenced only in the lead when there is no appropriate section to put it. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think anything in the lead should be stated in the body in some way. The lead should be a summary, without stand-alone text. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The MOS states: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." Personally, I think the intro should have no unique info at all, as it is only supposed to be a summary of the article. But what can you do... FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, everything should appear in the body, or be cited in the lede. Within reason.  I don't repeat, for example, legal citations because I consider them their own reference. Same should go for the infobox, if any.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the exception in MOS. Delete exception. All facts in lede must be in article.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Audio versions of featured articles
While doing some routine maintenance/updating on a couple of FAs I nominated three years ago (George Lansbury and Jane Cobden), I noticed that links had been added to word-for-word audio versions of these articles. I'm none too enthusiastic with the outcomes; the texts are delivered in a flat monotone which frequently stumbles, misreads or mispronounces, and the habit of "reading" the  punctuation ("open quotation marks", "close quotation marks", etc) and the section and subsection titles  is somewhat irritating. I'm a bit flummoxed: are these two the only articles that have been given this treatment, and if so, why? My first instinct was simply to remove the audio versions, but it occurred to me that they might be part of some basically worthy project which I've somehow not heard about. So I've left things for the time being, but I'd welcome the views of others on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * An article I nominated, Columbian mammoth, also got a strange audio version, which only consists of the intro... FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, but Lansbury (the only one I checked) is not listed. I would enquire of the editor who added the link, if that person remains active.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In 8+ years of editing I have never come across this wikiproject, which has apparently been around since 2005, nor seen any discussion related to it. Strange. It is not confined to featured articles, and the choice  of what to record is seemingly random. The project appears to have quite worthy objectives (see here), but is I think undermined by the lack of reading skills as I've indicated above. At FAC we are required to write to a professional standard, but the reading is anything but professional, and the constant interruptions to the text ("open quote", "close quote", "open bracket", "ellipsis", "Section 1, subsection one point one", etc), together with frequent mispronunciations (e.g. the London district of "Bow" rhymes  with "go", not "cow"), make listening rather painful. But this is probably not a discussion to continue here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

RS question for NASCAR FAs
See this RSN discussion; the source in question is used in multiple NASCAR FAs and GAs, including a current FAC, so I would like to get more eyes on the discussion. I've posted a note at the NASCAR Wikiproject to let editors there know about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For myself - just being "owned" by ESPN probably is not quite enough for FA level sourcing. You're going to want to see where other reliable sources use this site as a source or refer to it as reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While I don't have strong enough knowledge of NASCAR to say what web sites are reliable sources for stock car races, I do see usage as a source here and here. Not sure if that's enough, but it's better than nothing. The sources both use it for statistical information. Perhaps one solution would be to declare it acceptable for items such as manufacturers' standings and TV ratings, decide that the article in question doesn't need a whole paragraph on a test done a month before the race to be comprehensive, and call it a day. It doesn't really matter to me, though, and I hope that everyone can work together to find a good solution. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk
Given this was a world leader of some duration, this would be a good one to get right. I've run through this a couple of times but my weakness is to detail if there are alot of errors, so would be keen if someone else looked over it as well (be interested to see what I missed too!). Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to errors of text, such as grammar, or some other sort of error? I do have Sihanouk on my list, I did a review of the son's article, but there are other things I have to get to first.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (belatedly) what I mean is when I copyedit a large chunk of text, if there is alot of prose that needs improving I will miss some of it as I am finding other bits. Not hard grammar errors but just middling prose issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my experience as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I archived this nom prior to Cas' most recent post, because I felt it still had a long way to go before achieving consensus to promote. My suggestion (echoing at least one reviewer) was that PR should be its next destination, before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My thinking was along those lines as well, as the fact that I was picking up alot of things would mean I was missing stuff as well and probably be unable to see it readily. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing FAC for "Shine"
Hello, I was wondering how do I withdraw my nomination for "Shine"? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You've done the right thing requesting it on the FAC page -- I'll take care of it. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I apologize for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No inconvenience at all, it's one of the things the coordinators are here for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick heads-up
This harebrained PR stunt thought-provoking proposal to ensure any passing aliens are brought up to speed on hurricanes, 19th-century coins, disused Buckinghamshire railway stations and the works of Square Enix looks likely to pass. Since the stated aim is explicitly to "create a strong intensive [sic] for people to bring their favorite topics up to featured status" before a 5 Dec 2016 deadline, expect a flood of well-intentioned newcomers nominating their favorite bands, movie stars, sports teams etc at FAC, and a flurry of mutual back-scratching which will likely make WikiCup circa 2008 look tame. This isn't (necessarily) a presumption of bad faith and it may well bring in a number of people who will make productive contributions, but it's safe to say it will draw quite a lot of "I think this article is cool" nominators who may get upset when it's explained to them that their pet project isn't up to scratch, as well as creating a huge incentive for sockpuppetry. (I am sorely tempted to push Scrotal inflation through FAC just to see Jimbo's expression at the press conference.) &#8209; Iridescent 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a well-founded fear, perhaps FAC should adopt some of the best practices of processes like RfA: a couple of good essays on what should be brought to the process in the first place (Really simple guide to requests for adminship etc.) and good snow close practices (Not now). Once doomed-to-fail RfAs start attracting many oppose votes, they are generally closed in a way that leaves no one 'upset'. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Impulse will not stop to read.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because RFA is such a smoothly-functioning and well-managed process which we all should be aspiring to imitate… &#8209; Iridescent 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am by no means an expert on either FAC or RfA, so it might be that I overestimate how the latter functions and misunderstand what the former needs. But my impression of what's wrong with RfA is precisely the opposite of the concern raised here: there are too few RfA applications. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, looking at the last three NOTNOW closes at RFA, one has since been blocked for sockpuppetry and one hasn't edited for a month. I think you'll find there's a general consensus that RFA is the single most broken process on the whole of Wikipedia (just in case the decade-worth of proposals to abolish it in its archives isn't a clue.) The issue with RFA isn't "too few applications", it's that it's a thoroughly discredited failure which only exists because nobody can reach agreement on what to replace it with. &#8209; Iridescent 17:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me for bringing this back around to FAC, but I was thinking just this morning about the pros and cons of giving potential nominators a clue as to what's expected at FAC. I'll give the same answer that Gandhi may have given when asked what he thought of modern civilization ... I think it would be a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always understood Gandhi to have been responding to a question about western civilistion, not modern civilisation. Eric   Corbett  19:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, and I think they said "Western" in the film. The link (wikiquote) tells a different story. I'd like to know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any doubt at all that Wikiquote is wrong in this case. Eric   Corbett  20:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Just some thoughts from someone who has sloshed around through several levels of review processes:


 * Check list is needed on what is expected. Per Dank's comment, people need a clue on what is expected.
 * Keep the criteria all on one page, and don't assume everyone knows what core policies are.
 * Ergo, GAC at least has templates to help.


 * Too many rules make people snooze.
 * Essays make people snooze.
 * Put in a criteria of how much WP experience is needed to nominate/review.
 * Shouldn't be any drive-by newbie/sock/IP can nominate an article.


 * Reviewers sometimes stick their own criteria into a nomination, and oppose the nom if not complied with.
 * Nominators sometimes balk at criteria, based on what amounts to no rules apply to them.
 * Nominations are already backed up for months at all levels of reviews. What has been proposed will only make it worse.

If I thought about it, there would be more. But in all review levels, I see too much wait time, too many egos, too many reviewers who don't know what they're supposed to but are given equal weight. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What he↑ said. Add in "don't feel you have to comply with every demand a reviewer makes of you, but if you disregard a suggestion, or if you go against the MOS, be prepared to explain in detail why you're disregarding it". &#8209; Iridescent 19:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (adding) This would probably be an opportune moment to take a long hard look at whether Featured article criteria is fit for purpose. There are ten criteria, five of which are completely subjective ("prose of a professional standard" could apply equally well to the crappiest tabloid newspaper), and one of which it's literally impossible to comply with for most topics. &#8209; Iridescent 19:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So is it "high quality reliable sources" or "comprehensive" that's almost impossible to comply with? (Myself I'd also had it's almost impossible to comply with all of the MOS, but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I take it you haven't actually read every significant book on William the Conqueror ever written? Reviewers have been routinely turning a blind eye to 1(c) ever since it was introduced, but newcomers can't be expected to know that. &#8209; Iridescent 19:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The biographies? I've read most of the recent ones from academics. (No, I haven't read the ones that argue that Billy the Bastard was really from Alpha Centauri). He's actually surprisingly unpopular in the academic press. Stephen would be the hard one... or Henry II. William II is easy - there are .. two academic bios of him. I figured that was the criteria you were referring to but wanted to make sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The best example I know is UK railways, as Ottley's means one can actually quantify how many RS's there are. The thing is the size of a phone book and lists over 20,000 books (and remember, this is just listing significant works about trains in a single country). Jesus is an FA, but I doubt even the Pope would feel confident in saying he'd conducted "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". &#8209; Iridescent 19:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd feel very confident in saying that the Pope has read rather few books on Jesus. And why would he need to anyway, as he's infallible? Just like certain other editors I could mention here, who peddle their own unsubstantiated opinions. The fact of the matter is that the editors of Britannica or ODNB articles haven't read all of the sources either, they're simply writing an opinion piece based on whatever their preconceptions happen to be. Eric   Corbett  19:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but presumably ODNB et al don't tell new writers joining them that they're expected to perform a thorough survey of all relevant literature before they start typing. I'm not suggesting "thorough and representative" is what we should be aiming for, I'm saying it's an unrepresentative policy which just puts off potential participants. &#8209; Iridescent 20:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a thorough survey of the literature about Abraham Lincoln would be practical. You wouldn't live long enough to complete it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Or be able to find the willpower. Those of us who've written an FA know that the vast majority of books repeat old material, very little new, they just try to spice it up. You could probably write a credible FAC with just three or four of the key references, but that wouldn't be allowed under the current regime. How many references do the editors of Britannica or ONDB use? None? Eric   Corbett  20:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most ODNB entries are written by the subjects' biographers so the question doesn't arise, since they're 'citing' their own research. IIRC, Britannica does sometimes reference articles if they're not the product of original research. More to the point, why are the WMF flying a Wikipedia CD-ROM to the moon? &#8209; Iridescent 20:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they can, I suppose. I approve.  It reminds me of the caches of knowledge found by explorers in science fiction after the alien civilization's been destroyed, as in "The Star". Or if we get wiped out by Bronson Alpha and the moon survives.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but I doubt Clarke ever envisaged alien explorers reconstructing human civilization from Fuck the Millennium, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and Pig-faced women. (Anyone think we can get Rachel Marsden up to FA level by December?) &#8209; Iridescent 21:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most FACs are on micro-topics where this issue is not such a problem. I think a realistic approach is taken on larger or better-covered subjects, skimping on "thorough" if necessary. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly the aliens can proceed as in this story to grasp our language from articles on universal shared concepts common to all civilizations. Like Disco Demolition Night.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Question - Is this ever enforced? Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. If it has not been enforced before, it should be if the above proposal goes into effect.  What I've seen a lot of at GAC is that, regardless of what the guidelines say, many articles are nominated by people who have had no part in editing the article.  So when questions arise, they're silent. — Maile  (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly in Sandy and Raul's day, they'd quickfail nominations from people who hadn't worked on the article and didn't have the consent of the article's authors, on the grounds that if the author thought it wasn't ready it almost certainly wasn't. I'd be very surprised if the current delegates don't do something similar. &#8209; Iridescent 20:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We always try to enforce that rule, and we always try to act promptly when a reviewer recommends withdrawal for an unprepared nom. I don't have time just now to comment more on this thread, later I hope. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that one is still enforced. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from anything else, what seems to be happening is a very nice vote of confidence in the work we and our colleagues on other projects do.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Source review request
Hi all,

I am requesting a source review for the 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division article, as part of the FA process.

Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here create a lot of content, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources for material added by an IP years ago
Something's come up in the article I'm currently working on that I haven't run into before, but I'm betting someone else has. I'm hoping to bring Weird Tales to FAC. This diff is of material that appears to be well-sourced; it was added four years ago by an IP, so I've no way of contacting them, other than a hopeful note on the article talk page. I don't have those sources but I have no reason to believe there's anything wrong with the added information. However, I'm reluctant to go to FAC without being able to defend that material. If someone challenges anything about it I'll just have to cut it. I do have other sources that cover those events, but they don't go into this much detail. Do I assume good faith edits, and leave the material there? I will try asking at the resource request page, but in the meantime I'm curious to know how other nominators have handled similar situations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Google, google books, google scholar, jstor, questia, delete. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Only one of my FAs had substantive content before I started working on it, but I operated on the assumption that existing sourced content was accurate until proven otherwise. I've seen quite a few nominations where existing material had plagiarism issues, but very few where it was just incorrect. I'd say AGF. As an aside, you might be surprised at the efficiency with which your local library can obtain things like that via ILL or electronic document delivery. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What he said. I've seen elaborate attempts to insert false info with references that appeared genuine, but I strongly doubt that kind of vandalism would occur on this page. I made my previous answer just on general principles, w/o looking at the actual text. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm pretty sure the information is correct -- it tallies with the information I do have, and it's the sort of source that would give that sort of detail. Hadn't thought of trying my local library; I'll do that this afternoon.  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Better yet, try Worldcat. I got six libraries that stock Locus within a hundred miles of me. YMMV. I also warily assume good faith about existing references.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what your search terms are? I just tried and couldn't find it; I haven't done much with Worldcat so I suspect there's something obvious I'm missing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just searched for Locus. Try #1 on these results.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reviews needed to try to make centennial date
Hi all, Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1 needs some love so it can get on the main page for a centennial anniversary. Will anyone pitch in? It's only had a couple reviews in an entire month at FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In-Universe perspective in Featured Article plot sections
I am making this request due to a discussion I initiated here. The discussion centered on whether the in-universe template should be applied to the article on the The Phantom Tollbooth, which happens to be a featured article. My understanding of MOS:PLOT and MOS:INUNIVERSE is that the entire article, including in a plot summary section, should be written in an out-of-universe perspective, and therefore this article should be changed to fix this. To me, it seems that there are a few possibilities:  I am misinterpreting the plot summary in The Phantom Tollbooth, and it isn't in the in-universe perspective. I am misinterpreting the guidelines at MOS:PLOT and MOS:INUNIVERSE, and it is acceptable to write in an in-universe style, as long as it is within a plot summary section. There actually is a problem, and we should be taking steps to resolve it.</li> </ol> Thanks, <font face="Impact" color="red">Gluons12 <font face="Verdana" color="black">talk 15:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC).


 * This is a ridiculous complaint; since the section in question is captioned "Plot", no reasonable reader is going to conclude it's a statement of fact rather than a plot summary, and any article on a work of fiction which doesn't include a plot summary is going to have serious issues. I strongly suggest you close the section now with appropriate policies, as you're fundamentally misunderstanding what the MOS says. &#8209; Iridescent 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a fair concern - just labelling a section of an article "Plot" doesn't exempt it from other policies and guidelines. In-universe plot summaries can still occur and should be avoided. I just don't think this plot summary is written "in universe". (If anything, I would argue that there is no reason that the summary of this book cannot be sourced to secondary sources, given its classic-ness, but that's not a requirements) --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not really an in-universe perspective. It is told from the POV of an observer, and not as if events were unfolding in real life. Out-of-universe doesn't require that the plot being discussed relative to the work (eg "At the start of the book, ..." type language), just that it avoids putting the reader in a narrative framing that acts as if the story is real. --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries are necessary; they are an exception to WP:INUNIVERSE, which really needs to get rewritten to reflect our broad practice. Side note: plot summaries are really weirdly controversial. I've had people tell me before that plot summaries also need to be fully referenced, which seemed rather ludicrous (given that the book is the obvious source). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Referencing is not required, but one also needs to balance the verification aspect, in that for very long or large works, it might be necessary to narrow down where certain events occur. What is very long/large, there's clearly no guideline, but something akin to War and Peace is definitely large enough for this, while The Cat in the Hat is not. Most films and TV shows are short enough to be obvious to find things - that is, the reader can verify that the plot summary is accurate after watching the movie for two hours. For large works this is where out of universe writing helps, because now you can say "In Act I...", or "In Volume IV", or where that might be seemingly disruptive, adding a reference of the specific chapter or scene or timecodes; these guide the reader to understand how the work's plot itself is broken up and where to read if they need to investigate further.
 * The only two required times where referencing is 100% required is 1) direct quoting dialog per WP:QUOTATION and 2) if there is an element of the plot that is not obvious or requires knowledge outside of the work to clarify the plot. I can't find any immediate examples on WP, but one that would come to mind is for Back to the Future II, when old Biff returns to the future, he appears older and frailer as if about to die; it was explained by production that his timeline had changed and he was being erased but obviously that didn't make it to screen. If we did include that in the plot summary on WP, that part would 100% need a source as to presume that was what was intended is original research and interpretation, and not allow for unsourced plot summaries. --M ASEM (t) 21:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Question for FAC reviewers
In March 2014, I nominated Ike Altgens for FA status. The nom died an unceremonious death due to lack of interest. Ten months later, I took the article to GAN where, with massive help from and, it was promoted to Good article status.

I have been loath to try the FAC process again, given the experience, but I believe this article is Featured quality and should be recognized as such. Based on recent experience, how do reviewers believe a new nom would fare?

TIA &#128406; ATS /  Talk  01:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Skimming the article fairly quickly, I see no obvious red flags. However, you may wish to try peer review first, which is a good way to get feedback from other editors with less at stake.  (Unfortunately there is no guarantee of reviewer interest either here or at PR.)  You may get comments at PR which will help you decide whether to bring it to FAC.  If you haven't successfully nominated a featured article in the past, I would recommend PR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , PR at the time got less response than the candidacy, while the article now is virtually identical to the version passed at GAN, which would make PR all but redundant. To me, the quality is without question; whether it would get anywhere in FAC is my worry. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  02:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't wanna make more than my monthly quota of incendiary comments, but I find possible room for debate on the contention that passing GAN makes PR unnecessary. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not in general . &#128406; ATS /  Talk  03:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ATS: FAC is unfortunately very inbred these days, and it's difficult to get reviews if you're not a recognized name (and even sometimes if you are). PR wouldn't be "redundant", as PR reviewers sometimes show up to FAC reviews to give their support, but again the place is an echo chamber.  My advice is to nominate it and be sure to advertise the nomination anywhere appropriate—mainly the WikiProject talk pages listed on the article talk page.  If it gets archived, just renominate it two weeks later, re-advertise it, and be sure to ping anyone who has commented on the previous nomination.  Don't take archiving personally—it's not a comment on you or the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but, in particular, now is not a good time to nominate, with all the northern hemisphere going on holiday. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, all! &#128406; ATS /  Talk  04:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Source and image check requests
I requested a source check for Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/archive1 on 5 June and I am still waiting. Given that it has been ignored thus far, I see no reason why it would receive one in the near future and I am wondering therefore what will happen to my nomination.--Ykraps (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to take a look the other day but got sidetracked. I've actually been out playing alot of Pokemon Go. Will take a look soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great, thank you. I don't mind being patient but when I can't see anything happening, I begin to wonder.--Ykraps (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination and review count, displayed on FAC page
To avoid distracting from the discussion about prerequisites for FAC, I want to pull one idea from above out to its own section and propose it again. I'd like to see us report, on the nominations page, how many nominations a reviewer has made, and how many reviews they have given. It would look like this (if you're using the nom viewer):

25. Ellie (The Last of Us)[edit source] [show](nomination: 2nd · 22 days old · 1 nominator (4 noms/9 reviews) · 4 participants · 3 supports) 26. Science-Fiction Plus[edit source] [show](nomination · 23 days old · 1 nominator (6 noms/7 reviews) · 3 participants) 27. Vladimir Lenin[edit source] [show](nomination · 24 days old · 1 nominator (19 noms/117 reviews) · 7 participants · 1 support)

(The numbers are made up, of course.) It could be maintained by a bot as is done for GA.  Within a nomination it would appear like so: The Left Hand of Darkness[edit source] The Left Hand of Darkness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Featured article candidates/The Left Hand of Darkness/archive1

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC) (2 noms/8 reviews)

The count would only record noms and reviews as of a given start date, so that we all start on a level playing field. I don't know how hard this would be to do, but since it works for GA I'm sure it could be done here.

Pros:
 * It would become provide a touch of competitiveness to reviewing, which might encourage more reviews.
 * It might embarrass some nominators into reviewing more -- it would make a nominator wince, surely, to see "9 noms/3 reviews" against their name.
 * Although there would be no quid pro quo, I think if I were hesitating between two nominations to review, I might pick the one with the more active reviewer, as a thank you for their reviewing work.

Cons:
 * It might encourage slapdash reviewing. I think few of us would fall prey to that temptation, and in a small community like this it would be soon be known if someone did.

Who else thinks this would be worth requesting at WP:BOTREQ? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you count reviews? I've made the odd driveby comment—would that work in my favour?  Wouldn't that encourage more driveby comments to stack the numbers? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To keep it simple, I'd suggest any editor who adds a comment that adds more than about 20 characters of information be counted as having done a review. That would eliminate drive-by indent-fixing and typo-fixing and so on.  I'm aware that this means a drive-by review would count, but they're not that common, and frankly they can be helpful, so why not give credit for them?  If someone does supply a lot of drive-by comments just to get a higher score, then I think it would get noticed, but even if it didn't, the net effect of the visibility of the numbers for other editors would still be positivie despite the presence of one or two editors gaming the system. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I think the question of "what constitutes a review" would colour any such scheme and lead to disagreements. A detailed peer review may be worth a dozen driveby FAC comments; I often give a comprehensive review at PR, and follow this up with a single declaration line at FAC. In your scheme, this would be evaluated as the same as any superficial driveby comment. Personally, I think that whatever is done, the "serious" FAC reviewers will carry on much as they do now, unconcerned with incentives of one kind or another, but I am worried that the introduction of a quasi-competitive "numbers" scheme might otherwise encourage superficial reviewing at FAC, to no one's advantage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, schemes that draw attention to numbers of reviews (or QPQ-like systems) have been floated over the years and we always get stuck on the question of what constitutes a "review". Which criteria does the review mention? How long is it? Is it an experienced reviewer (i.e. am Ian and I going to be familiar with their reviewing style)? These questions all point to manual assessment of review numbers and inevitable disputes. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, manual determination of whether something counts as a review would be prohibitively labour-intensive -- if something like this were to be done, it would have to be automated. I think the question is whether the negative effects Brian is concerned about are likely, and whether the possible benefits make the risk worthwhile.  I find it hard to imagine a situation where real damage is done to FAC by an occasional superficial review; promotions are by consensus, not by numerical vote counting.  And I think the benefit is likely to be real -- I don't believe a single one of the long-time reviewers would do a superficial review just to get their count up, but they might well do a couple more real reviews because of a gentle reminder that they were falling behind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring discussion

 * The "first time nominators have to get their articles through GAN first" idea seems much more feasible~, reliable, and less drastic. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The ideas are not mutually exclusive, and are anyway dealing with different problems. Mikes's purpose is to encourage increased FAC participation, while the proposed GAN hurdle is intended to discourage unprepared FACs. There are obvious problems with both: Mike's scheme  might encourage superficial FAC comments/reviews, while on the other hand the GAN hurdle is of variable height, with no guarantee of equal standards – many articles that get the GA badge are woefully inadequate in FAC terms. I think Mike's idea would be worth a trial run, if the various technical issues can be resolved. As to the GAN hurdle, may I float this alternative idea: each first-time FAC nom must be mentored by a co-nominator, who may be any editor   who has  a minimum of (say) five FACs to their name. The mentor would be responsible for ensuring that article met the FAC criteria before nomination. A list of potential mentors would be available to all potential new nominators. An incentive to act as a mentor would be a share in the bronze star if the candidate is promoted – would something along these lines work, I wonder?     Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea, Brian. The disadvantage is that it doesn't require any but first-time nominators to bring better-prepared articles to the process, and noms that get bogged down in de facto PR can come from more experienced editors as well as novices -- but worth considering I think.  Note BTW that the "GAN hurdle" was not my suggestion, partly for the reason you point out -- if we do go down the pre-req review road then I think it needs to be a community one like PR or ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Mentoring sounds like a good idea. I remember collaboration with you, Brian, and Tim on what turned out to be my first FA because you generously included me in Messiah (Handel). - I just don't like mandatory and counting too much. Could we try to encourage that for a first nomination, a user should find a conom with experience? Alternatively, I'd return to the concept of a peer review before a first nomination, because many peers can give more ideas than one mentor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the mentoring idea and would be willing to help a first-timer in that way. I'd prefer not to get credit as a nominator, though; I would rather it wasn't a way for those of us with lots of bronze stars to acquire more. And we could try making it voluntary before making it mandatory, and see if it helps.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The collaborative aspect of Brian's suggestion is something I find very worthwhile. If we did adopt this, I don't know that it'd a problem the more experienced collaborator getting another bronze star if the nom is successful -- that would happen automatically if the co-nom's name is in there, and I think it'd be a good idea for their name to be there because it means they really do have some skin in the game. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, here's a straw-man procedure. How does this look?
 * Add a box at the top of WT:FAC where nominators can request a mentor.
 * Add wording to the instructions saying that a mentor is strongly suggested for a first time nominator, and is optional until you have three successful nominations.
 * Mentoring bypasses the nomination limits: if I have a nom and co-nom up, and I mentor two new nominators, I can have a third and fourth nom up in that case.
 * Mentors can have no more than two noms at FAC for which they are mentors. If they take on another nomination it can't be nominated with their name on it if they have two current mentor noms.  This seems like a common sense limit to avoid mentors overstretching themselves.  Alternatively we could allow three mentor noms if they only have one up of their own.
 * Anyone with a minimum of five successful nominations can put their name against any of the mentoring requests. A requestor can choose which to accept; they don't have to accept the first one.
 * If a mentor feels the article is not ready for nomination and says so, the requestor isn't required to follow their instructions. However, the requestor should expect that the mentor would oppose the nomination at FAC in that case.  That should discourage unprepared nominations.  A mentor may recommend GA or PR, or, if they have the time, do a review themselves.  The mentor isn't obliged to do a review; being a mentor only commits them to providing feedback on what should be done next.  Naturally mentors who provide reviews would be more popular.
 * Comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think mentoring is a really positive step to take, and agree with the criteria you have suggested. — Maile  (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Let us not hurry to pin things down, before we've had time to discuss various options for how a mentoring system might work. For example, I would favour a rather tighter system than Mike's draft criteria suggest – I think mentoring should be a requirement, not a recommendation, for first FAC nominations, and see a more active role for the mentor in the article's preparation, not just as a process facilitator. For the moment, if the FAC coordinators agree that memtoring might work, I suggest we move to a different forum where we can hammer out a specific workable policy. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I might be getting ahead of the discussion on this, but if the mentoring idea comes to fruition, perhaps we could have a link something like "First time nominators go here" that would take the first-timers to a subpage page that explains their particular process. They could list their articles on the subpage.  And just so first-timers don't feel so lost in the process, maybe experienced FA editors could list themselves if they're willing to mentor someone.  Additionally, I would say that if anyone opts to mentor a given first-timer on an article, they should stick with it.  It's a pretty desolate feeling to believe you're getting assistance, and then be abandoned with no explanation.  It's happened to me on FA. — Maile  (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential FAC contributor bot

 * I like the bot idea, because I like it at GA, but...
 * The GA bot is inaccurate. While I was working on my most recent GAC review, that tool showed me as "Reviews: 31"; my own list of what I reviewed at that point was 23.  It's always been off, and this cannot be explained by random notes on 8 reviews somewhere. GA reviews are done by a lone reviewer.
 * As mentioned above, "what constitutes a review"? There is a general practice on Wikipedia to "Support" or "Oppose" with no specifics.
 * Something like the AFDstats tool might be a better way to go, because it brings up a linked list that can be spot checked. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a neat tool. I've posted a note at the tool's contact talk pages to ask if something like that could be done for FAC; regardless of whether we use it in the way I'm suggesting it would be interesting to see the results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * AfD Stats maintainer here. Yes, something like that could definitely be done for FAC. It's certainly not that hard to list every edit someone made to a subpage of WP:FAC (and other pages) that changed more than X bytes - do you want any more processing to be done beyond that? Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 03:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks. Here's what I think would be useful, in decreasing order of desirability.  Anything that includes the first four points on this list would be great; the points below that would be nice to have.
 * For each user, a count of how many FACs they contributed to. "Contributed" would be defined as "made at least one edit to that added more than 20 bytes".
 * Exclude nominators from counting as contributors, including FACs with multiple nominators (listed in the FAC).
 * Count the number of FACs an editor has nominated, again including multiple nominators.
 * Exclude FAC coordinators from being counted as contributors if they closed the FAC -- in fact if they can be counted as closers, so we have a separate column for that, that would be great.
 * Also have a more restrictive count of reviewers: a reviewer is somone who is not a nominator and did not close the FAC, who posted a bolded "Support" or "Oppose" or "Comment", or who opened a fourth level section with a title starting "Comment" in a FAC.
 * Ignore FACbot, and any prior bots such as GimmeBot, that do clean up work at the end of a nomination. Note that in some cases these archives were closed by hand; I don't think there's going to be any way to distinguish those edits, so they'll come up as contributions.  If we focus on recent contributions, that becomes less important, though.
 * Allow a date range for the query. The data range should apply to the nomination date for nomination counts, and for review comment dates for the review counts and contribution counts.
 * Allow drilldown so if it says "Mike Christie 3 nominations" we can see which nominations it is referring too.
 * For each contributor, record the average number of bytes they contribute to the FACS they contribute to.
 * Does that sound doable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a lot of features, but it's totally doable. Progress will be tracked here. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I think this will be very useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for source and image check
Hello! I was wondering how can I request a source and image check for Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. I apologize if this is clearly stated in the instructions or on the main page. I am still new to Wikipedia and the FAC process, but I would greatly appreciate it and feel that it would help my nomination to get a source and image check. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Aoba47, I've listed it for you - it's the box at the top of this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and sorry for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did an image check on that nomination.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

FAC then and now
I've prepared a couple of tables, to show how FAC has evolved during the time I've been involved with it. Obviously the figures don't tell the complete story, but I do think they provide a useful overview of activity between 2007 and mid-2016, and perhaps provide food for thought as to how FAC should develop in the future.

The overall picture is one of a steady decline in participation. However, the high levels of activity in 2007 and 2008 reflect that FAC was then a relative novelty and not fully understood; all sorts of unsuitable stuff got nominated, to be swiftly despatched by Sandy when she assumed delegate responsibility in mid-2007 or thereabouts. Those numbers were never going to be sustained; what is more concerning is the decline in numbers since the beginning of 2014. These two-and-a-half years saw just 733 promotions over a period of 912 days, thus depleting our unused potential TFA stock by 189. The present monthly promotion rate is alarmingly low at 18. This shortfall will become serious if maintained for another year or so; although we still have over 1000 FAs that have yet to appear on the main page, many of these are very old, their authors long gone, and as they stand could never be considered as possible TFAs.

The second table indicates that FAC has become a much more leisurely process. Before 2010 it was rare for any candidate to linger for as long as 21 days, and archiving was much more abrupt; few articles without at least two supports lasted longer than 14 days. Nowadays, six or seven weeks is par for the course before either  promotion or archiving. I believe the co-ordinators have consciouly adopted a more time-generous approach, but a major factor, I believe, is the worrying shortage of regular reviewers, who were in plentiful supply in earlier years but are becoming increasingly hard to find. Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Table 1: FAC throughput from 2007 to mid-2016

Table 2: Average days in FAC


 * Thanks for this excellent analysis, Brian. There certainly was a time when we adopted rather blunt tactics for dealing with the relatively high number of unprepared nominations flooding FAC. Interest in the process was high and that interest brought both good and bad elements to FAC. I believe many editors decided not to pursue this standard any longer in favor of more relaxed processes like GA, either because they found it too rigorous or because they found the environment disagreeable and unfriendly. I like to think an equally rigorous but more friendly atmosphere has evolved in the last couple of years. I've also noted the emergence of what I like to call "working groups" who bring well-prepared content to FAC that has been thoroughly prepared in PR or project-based A-class reviews. Some have dismissively called these "cliques" but I believe these groups have discovered efficient and healthy methods for bringing content up to FA standard. We are facing a challenge to introduce more editors to these types of collaborative processes so worthy nominations don't linger and stagnate only because the nominator has not discovered ways to engage other editors. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've noticed the stalling out, just from how it was two years ago. The so-called cliques are fine for being willing to do the work and knowing how to do it correctly.  But they're not necessarily fine for branching out.  Speaking as someone who has been active on all the review processes, I do think the basic process is OK here.  I'm wondering if it might be helpful to offer a type of mentorship to anyone who wants to learn the process. While we don't necessarily know anyone's gender, it does look to me like FA is low on nominations about non-entertainment women.  Perhaps one place to start recruiting would be at WT:WOMRED. I mention that one because it seems really active, but could use a system to get the new articles up to FA standard. — Maile  (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The one you actually want is is WikiProject Women/Women in Green. They are about improving the quality of articles about women. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. And that's a new project.  Just for the heck of it, let's tap into some of the "thinkers and doers" who are trying to elevate the coverage of women on Wikipedia.   just for starters, do you have any ideas of how to generate a learning process to take women's articles up through FAC?  Bearing in mind that FAC, while similar to other review processes, can be more lengthy and detailed on issues. In some ways, it can be intimidating the first time or two. — Maile  (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In connection with Women in Green, several of us have indeed volunteered to work on the improvement of existing articles rather than the creation of new ones under Women in Red. As I am particularly interested in Scandinavia, I have offered to work on at least three biographies of women between now and the end of the year and would be happy to assist with other candidates or help with reviews. In my experience, promotion to FAC is dependent on considerable amount of collaborative effort. GA can be obtained without too much trouble but FAC requires much more. I must say I have been discouraged by the extremely demanding criteria for the images to be included in FACs which in some cases appear to diminish the attractiveness of an article. If we could muster up more collaboration here, I would be more willing to collaborate. I also think it might be useful to post candidates for both GA and FA on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. I usually only come across them when I am personally invited to participate.--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * when we started WP/WiR I was gungo-ho about improving articles up the ladder. I encouraged several editors to improve their stubs to be submitted to DYK and almost without exception, they ran into the bureaucracy and non-nurturing environment that exists there. Most stopped or curtailed their editing entirely and I personally stopped submitting any files to DYK. I also tried to get help with improving an article per month to GA status but found no real success in attracting new collaborators. The same group of us participated in taking several articles to GA, but attracting others didn't really work. I'm still looking for a woman or two to do for WP/WiG. I am not interested in doing entertainers, but that makes it more challenging as I have no access to libraries and limited mail service, which makes research all the more difficult. I am more than willing to collaborate with others, if the environment is drama-free and the subject captures my interest. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Success at FAC depends on more than writing and research skills, it's also about being able to accept and give feedback. Neither of those happens in a day, and I wonder if people are hesitant to try to review for fear that their reviews will not be well-accepted.  FAC has a steep learning curve on top of the steep learning curve necessary to successfully edit Wikipedia. I suspect we are losing more people than we develop, especially those with the interest in writing about multiple fields. I  thank Brian for the chart, we get too few statistics and it is sobering to see it laid out in numbers. I don't see an obvious answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see three questions: How do we best meet TFA's needs for one article per day? How can we be more transparent about how FAC works? And how can we be more transparent about the advantages of article reviewing in general? By reviewing, I mean any process where the writers and the reviewers can decide when they want to work, which article(s) they want to work on, the size of the jobs, the kinds of problems they enjoy working on and feel competent with, and the subcommunities they want to work with. What some call "normal editing" (but it seems abnormal to me), watchlisting articles and reacting to other people's edits, gives you none of those freedoms ... you're dealing with people you didn't choose, with the issues they've chosen to deal with, on their timetable. Wikiprojects that include reviewing in the mix of what they do seem more humane, and more human, to me than those that don't. FAC is one of many good things that can happen when people find a way to get a range of reviewing processes to work for them. For me, the main issue is helping people succeed with writing and reviewing in general. - Dank (push to talk) 10:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the blunt tactics adopted in the early days was the limit of one nomination at a time. It was bad enough when it took two weeks for an article to get through FAC; it is really painful now that we are rationed to seven nominations a year. I have plenty of articles that could be nominated, but cannot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Brian, thanks for the data; very useful. To respond to a couple of points above:
 * Mentorship has been thought of before. Speaking personally, if an editor or WikiProject approached me for help, I'd be willing in principle, but I've come to believe the best way for a new nominator to learn is for them to take an article to FAC and see what happens.  (Assuming they've already been to GAN and PR.)
 * If the rate of production falls to the point we can't have a new FA as TFA every day, I can see it would disappoint some people, but I don't think it's a disaster. I know TFA is motivational for some editors, and a showcase to our readers, but we'd still be producing featured quality articles.  I don't think it would mean that the FAC process has failed; just that it's slowed down.
 * Yes, there are plenty of articles queued up by the more prolific nominators that are delayed by the one-at-a-time rule. I'm not one of them at the moment, but I've certainly had a queue ready in the past, so I sympathize.  However, if it takes, say, 6 reviews to promote an article, and each article is currently taking 52 days to promote, then if we doubled the number of articles at FAC without increasing the number of reviews, I would expect the average promotion to take 104 days.  I don't think that would be helpful, but we could try it.
 * Two other things we could try (both taken from GA) (and I'm not sure I support either of these, but I would like to hear comments):
 * Keep track of how many reviews an editor does, and how many FAs they have, and display them on the nominations page. This could be done by a bot, as it is at GA.  GA doesn't place any requirements on an editor based on this -- you don't have to do a review to get a review, for example -- but the league table encourages a little competitiveness, and it's embarrassing to be requesting your 40th GA review when you've only done one or two reviews yourself, so it motivates people.  One objection that has come up to this sort of thing in the past is that it would encourage slapdash reviewing, but I think very few of us would be susceptible to that, and I also think the coordinators would spot it.  If we were to do something like this I would suggest the counts all start at zero on the day we start; those of us with dozens of FAs and scores of reviews under our belt should start at the same level as everyone else for purposes of motivation.
 * , I have always liked this feature at GA and think it would work well here. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove all restrictions on nominations and also remove all time-based limits on length of nomination, requiring opposes to archive a nomination.
 * One of the unavoidable issues that bothers me about all reviews, is that there are no restrictions on who does the reviews. In theory, that's good. But when you get to something like GA, when it only requires one reviewer, a nomination can be torpedoed by someone who has never done a review before and never nominated an article.  Or, similarly passed by a a first-time reviewer who doesn't know what they're doing.  So I'm a little leery of a blanket remove of all restrictions.  — Maile  (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these figures. They do at least show a fairly steady increase in the promotion %, no doubt linked to the decline in participation, and relative restriction to a smaller group of experienced people. We have also seen a decline in some of the main "cookie-cutter" categories, roads, hurricanes and naval supply vessels, which I can't mourn. I have to say that, having started in 2008 I think, in the last 5 years I have only done "solo" FACs at the request of some outside organization, though I have jumped on some as co-nom. I've decided to spend most of my time (other than some new articles) improving big-topic articles that are still poor, without putting them through any of the review processes. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am an editor who has stopped participating much in FAC, I have found the process very unfulfilling and stressful when I have participated. One thing that could get me to want to participate again would be to find ways of making collaborative nominations of particularly important articles. The most important articles are usually also the hardest to write up to standard, because the literature they need to encompass is usually also the largest and most complex. I think that combined with the very solitary form the nomination and review process takes (often it feels like it is the nominator alone against a team of reviewers), this is the reason cookie cutter type articles and groups of writer/reviewers reviewing eachothers works fare best at FAC. This structure is why I dont want to participate in FAC as sole nominator - I would only want to work with a team of editors supporting eachother in the process. If we could somehoew find a way to organize group(s) of dedicated editors willing to work as a team on writing, reviewing and promoting some of these vital articles, I would be very interested in participating in that. But if I have to work on my own as the sole person resonsible I can only be bothered to go to GAN. Any chance that the process can be made to encourage more collective and collaborative forms of review and nomination?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering improving more articles about women. Giving credit where credit is do... has been a strong proponent of this for as long as I can remember. I have never participated on an FAC article as the process seems intimidating, and because I don't enjoy working on an article for long periods of time. I get bored. That said, if I were to pick one, it would be Margaret Mead. I just don't know how to make the time for it because of my other wiki and RL commitments. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I also have a hard time feeling motivated to take an article all the way to FAC too. I generally aim for GA now, make sure the article is comprehensive and well researched and move on. There is a lot of minor tweaking needed for FA and when there's so much basic work needing doing on articles I generally prefer to move on after getting to GA. FA is what we're all aiming for eventually though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be very prepared to work collaboratively on improving the article on Margaret Mead - it has been on my to do list for awhile (also Ruth Benedict).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, I thought I was the only one - I agree absolutely with everything said above, and have never warmed to FAC for exactly the same reason - if I spent too long working on an article without a break, I get bored, lose interest, and wander off elsewhere. I can just about gather myself together for the 7 days it takes to do a GA review (currently doing Keith Emerson and it's a long complicated slog - a bit like the man's music in places) but that really is the limit. I know there were several FA stalwarts behind me for The White Album but I could see stability would have killed the FAC dead, and given the article had a brief full-protection this year, I think I was justified. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Tks Brian for those statistics (for those interested, further regularly maintained details can be found at Featured article statistics, Featured log, and Archived nominations). A few thoughts in point form:
 * Yes, fewer articles are promoted now, but I note the proportion of those nominated to those promoted is up a little bit -- I might be concerned if it had gone up a lot, as it could suggest our standards were less rigorous now, and I don't think that's the case nor would we want that.
 * In answer to ·maunus, I think one way FAC encourages collaboration is that while currently you can only have one solo nomination at a time, you can have one solo and one collaborative nom open simultaneously, or two collaborative noms open simultaneously.
 * I understand the concern that the backlog of FAs that haven't appeared on the main page is getting smaller, but every cloud has a silver lining -- it could give comfort to those who clamour for more articles getting a second go on the front page...
 * On a more serious note, re. the length of reviews, wading through multiple FACs on a regular basis it often appears to me that the issue is not so much a lack of reviewers (though of course that does happen) but rather that FACs are turning into surrogate Peer Reviews -- a lot of healthy discussion, but in the wrong place. Now FAC should never be a tick-and-flick exercise, but nominators always have to look hard at their articles and consider if they really do meet the FA criteria in their current form. When they don't, we get these reviews that take a very long time to reach a consensus for promotion -- or archiving. Now of course Andy and I as coords could work at closing these sooner, but we've tended to try and give noms every chance, if only for the pragmatic reason that an archived nom is likely to come back for another try (and sometimes another and another) anyway. Andy and I in fact briefly discussed one way to address this a couple of weeks ago, and now seems an appropriate time to float it here -- for now I'll open a new subsection for it below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Has anyone thought of recruiting the massive amount of people who seem to participate in AfD? Maybe their review skills could be put to use on GA. There are some very thoughtful participants who don't seem to be content creators. Maybe they've gotten into AfD because there's a smaller learning curve there. I've felt more comfortable participating in AfD's than I have in DYK and I'm just starting to work on a GA for Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba.... so I know there's a learning curve there. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh holy mother of god, no! (LOL)  Most of those people never create content and have no understanding of the process; Our FA approval rate would drop to 2% and each FAC would grow so tl;dr that it would break the wiki.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  18:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

FAC nom preparedness
Several years ago I suggested requiring all FAC nominators to have put their articles through GAN and/or PR and/or A-Class Review before they would be considered for FAC. That didn't gain much traction, partly because experienced nominators had no interest in GAN and didn't consider it a useful way of weeding out unprepared noms anyway, and that was fair enough. I think now, though, with so many noms turning into peer reviews, and in light of Brian's stats above, it'd be worth considering it again (minus the GAN bit). IOW, what if we required all FAC nominations to have had a PR or ACR (either within a recent timeframe, or to not have substantially changed since the PR/ACR) unless dispensation is requested and granted? Many experienced and successful editors at FAC employ PR, and most of the prolific Roads and MilHist crowd, for instance, use their respective ACR processes. I realise that PR often has trouble attracting reviewers (and even MilHist ACR is not as quick as it used to be) but if we do want to reduce the length of time articles spend at FAC without archiving noms sooner when they don't attract outright comprehensive support in a reasonable time, then this might be a way to do it. What's everyone think? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea is good. How about strongly recommending a peer review before FAC, and requesting it for a first nomination? I had one article where a PR would have taken too long, and another one is in the planning, sorry, - in both cases there were unexpected reasons outside Wikipedia that made progress too slow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If an unprepared article goes to PR and gets no feedback because PR is overloaded, and then it comes here, there's no benefit. Ian, don't you think this would add an obstacle but not add any incentive for additional reviews? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall this idea being kicked around before, and always rejected. Forex, the only wikiproject I've ever known to have even a halfway decent A-class review is MilHist, so suggesting an A-class only covers a small portion of noms. As for PR, I've heard that many noms there (do they call them noms?) get zero review or automated review due to lack of reviewers. So in theory it's a good idea but in practice it may not help too much... Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike and Ling—I think the key here is that we would be requiring some sort of review process before an article comes to FAC. That's it. It can be GAN, PR, ACR, etc. For nominators who don't typically do this at all, their experience at FAC tends to be one of scraping for reviews and bringing the article up to standard while it's here. This causes the nomination to linger for weeks or even months, at which time it might not even be promoted. Our proposal encourages them to engage in this process before nomination. So, it's not adding work for anyone. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fully behind this idea. As Ian noted, there are many experienced editors at FAC who employ either a formal PR or ACR process, or at least spend time working on an article with peers in an informal process before nomination. These nominations are typically successful here at FAC and move through the process smoothly. There are also many nominations (both prepared and unprepared) that are worked on in a vacuum and FAC is the first time they've been exposed to reviewers. Those nominators can spend a lot of time wrangling reviewers and workshopping the article here—which is not the intended purpose of FAC. In my view, it's better for the nominator to wrangle reviewers into a PR process and then bring the article here fully prepared. The biggest drain on reviewer resources is unprepared nominations, not the number or length of nominations. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think more integration between FAC and GAN is a good idea. I always take articles though GAN before FAC. I once proposed that a FAC could be promoted for GA instead of failing (if up to those standards, which are basically just short of FAC standards), which would make it less of a blow for nominators. But nothing came of it, as many seem keen on keeping them separate because of some kind of historical animosity. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. It would also make sense to require GA status for an article to be nominated. It really makes no sense to keep the two processes as separate as they are now when really they ought to be two steps in a sngle process.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree completely with Ian!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a good deal of respect for GAN, and haven't noticed any animosity between participants in the two processes -- but perhaps I need to get out more! In fact I always take an article through GAN as a first step towards FAC. I find it a good way to pick up obvious errors or a few places for improvement before subjecting the article to the more rigorous ACR and FAC processes. I think though that GAN, being a one-on-one situation, doesn't prepare novices for the cut-and-thrust of a community review, let alone those that carry assessments like ACR and FAC. So while I'd say any pre-FAC review is better than none, I think the best preparation is a community review such as PR or ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If you make people go through GA first, it would discourage some and would lengthen the process for all. Both of these would contradict the two things Brian's kick-off post were aiming at: we need more articles going through and faster. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I consider this unworkable given GAN's current state of torpor; outside of a few topics like sporta and videogames which historically have a lot of eyes on them at GAN, the process is almost moribund. As I write this, there are 18 nominations which have been outstanding since March (including the relatively core topic of Heart) without a single comment; I don't see why my dumping things like Musidora and Candaules which I already know meet WIAFA, into an already-backlogged process, is going to be of any benefit to anyone. &#8209; Iridescent 15:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The backlog exists in both places to be sure - I think the point of integrating the two processes would be to have a larger body of reviewers to draw on for both processes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dweller, it may make an individual article go through more reviews than it might have, but it needn't slow up the process as a whole. Let's suppose this were introduced, we wouldn't have to start it immediately, we could ask that all noms from a certain date required prior review, meaning people could start nominating articles they think have FAC potential in these other processes, while they continue with current FACs. As for articles going through FAC faster, I think we all want that, but we also need to ensure that our standards don't drop -- so we still want plenty of eyes on our FA candidates, but perhaps we can spread things out so we don't get these PR-like FACs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Any article will need to go through two processes, by definition meaning it'll be slower. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With some FACs taking over two months to reach consensus, I doubt it... ;-) The idea was to reduce the time articles spend at FAC. As I indicated above,  failing more reviewers getting stuck into articles quicker, we could do this by simply archiving FACs that haven't reached consensus to promote much sooner than we do, or we could try getting better-prepared noms into the system that might reach consensus sooner. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the kink in that: backlog and inexperience.  I considered putting my last FAC through one of the others first, and then looked at the backlog.  In theory, you could be stuck in the various processes for up to a year before you come out the other end on FAC.   I don't mind sending any military related article through Peer or A-class, because I know WPMILHIST has a process that works.  Even then, it can take a long time to make it through.  But I'm not willing to chance it on any other type of article. GAC?  Forget it.  Backlog is big.  And with respect to the "top tier" nominators and reviewers, at GAC you stand a good chance of getting a beginning reviewer who, at best, is trying very hard, but doesn't have the background to do justice to a serious article.  In some ways, I believe DYK is light years ahead of GAC on article requirements and reviews. WP:GAR doesn't require notability, but DYK does.  Seriously?  Let's say you have a top-notch editor who for years has consistently turned out top-quality product.  And now they would be required to go through processes where reviewers maybe are beginners. It's rather insulting.  I don't like that idea at all. — Maile  (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly the attitude that makes it impossible to recruit new editors from the GAN process to participate in FAC and to encourage experienced FA reviewers to participate in GA. A good example of the animosity that Funkmonk allided to. FAC also doesnt "require notability", that is because notability is a basic requirement for any article on wikipedia - which is relevant at DYK because most articles there are newly created (and becaus enon-notable articles have been nominated). A non-notable article does not make it to GAN.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that wasn't intended as animosity, but I can see where it looks like a class system, even if the intention is meritocratic rather than a system based on seniority. Personally I'd be willing to put my articles through other processes, even if it were slower, if that's going to be the rule.  I have a hard time seeing how this would speed things up, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They will be more prepared for FAC, and their reviews will therefore not be as drawn out ("FAC peer-reviews"). In theory, that should speed the FAC process up (the length of which is the problem being discussed here). FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And the pool of participants would be larger which also might speed it up.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as animosity, for any process. I work in all of them. Just a flat statement of how things are.  FAC review is a little more complicated, and is probably best with reviewers with a little more background in reviews. GAC has a set number of things that can be checked off on a template.  But I do see reviewers there who are trying their best, but for some it's the first review they're ever done, and GAC only requires one reviewer, no cross checking unless there is a complaint.  Same thing at DYK, except they have more requirements for passing a review, and it takes more than one set of eyes to pass, promote to prep, promote to queue and get it on the main page.  I mentioned DYK, because there's been an ongoing dialogue over the years about how GAC is better than DYK; yet, if your article passes GAC, then you are allowed to nominate it at DYK. And FAC is expected to be an elevated quality of writing.  I had an admitted teenager review one of my GAC, and then abandoned it because they were unfamiliar with commonplace terminology. All things to take into consideration. — Maile  (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

— Maile, while I have, as I mentioned above, respect for GAN, I haven't suggested that it be a requirement before FAC -- I did suggest that PR and ACR should be. Mike, it may or may not speed an article's overall progress from stub to FA, but I think it would make for a quicker FAC process. My personal experience -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one -- has been that taking an article through several reviews makes each succeeding review a less painful process than it might have been. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What about something like instead of (or in addition to, though I've never liked the rule) the fifteen-day time out for a failed nomination, the next article brought in has to have gone through PR or GA?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Or rather, as suggested by Funkmonk the peer reviewers could themselves give GA status to the article if they think it meets the standard without having to go through the formal GA nominaiton process. An article that can go through peer review obviously would also meet the GA criteria.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Remembering though that GAN is an assessment and PR technically isn't -- I think perhaps that's a separate discussion. Wehwalt, yes, maybe -- I often recommend PR to nominators when archiving a nomination.  And/or, as Gerda suggested, we could consider the PR/ACR requirement just for anyone making their first FAC nom if we can't get consensus to make it for all nominators (which I still think is the way to go -- so many of our most successful FAC editors already do it).  I don't want to put off newbies (I think one sign that FAC is still strong is the number of first-time nominators we keep getting) but then we currently have a convention of spotchecking sources for all first-time nominators, so there is precedent for another hoop for them, and I really think it helps prepare not just the article but the nominator themselves for what can be a challenging process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I have reservations about the idea, I think anything both the FAC coordinators support should be taken seriously. I suggest we let this thread run for another 12 to 24 hours, and then start another discussion section to formulate language for a specific proposal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I posted a notice at WT:GAN about this thread. They probably should have some input as to how a possible process would work that includes them.  — Maile  (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This thread is getting long and my eyes got googly reading it, but there was much discussion about FAC versus GAN and animosity. I may be able to supply historical perspective. I started out at GAN aeons ago and was among several who felt genuine animosity toward FAC. Then I switched to FAC (!) and in the intervening years have seen my appreciation for the GAN forum erode significantly. Forex, a few months or so ago I really really really wanted to help GAN so I tried my hand again at a nom that waited an extreeeemly long time for a review. It was an unmitigated catastrophe, and I am very leery of ever trying agin. I tried to apply minimum academic standards and was told I was being ridiculously strict. And on and on... The idea of failed FACs getting GA is OK, but I am very very leery of all other integrative schemes. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as being a problem myself. Firstly, you have to improve an article to GA status anyway on the way to FA. For example, I would hope that Passenger Pigeon's GA review made the FAC an easier ride. A counter-argument is that articles sit at WP:GAN for too long, but some of the backlog competitions have addressed, albeit with concerns for quality which risks a slapdash GA review getting grilled and tossed out at FAC. Perhaps if you are an extremely experienced editor with 10+ FAs under your belt and considered something of a world expert in your subject you might be able to bypass a GA, in the same way that, say, J K Rowling might be able to give the usual publishing pitch with a full synopsis a miss because she can get away with. But I wouldn't recommend it for most people.

I would not recommend any article getting GA as a "consolation prize" as a "near miss" at FAC, as you cannot easily tell if something does meet the FA criteria but does meet the GA criteria. It would be nice if more projects did A class reviews like MilHist, but I don't think there's the momentum for them; I tried pitching it to WP:ALBUMS once I think and people weren't too enthuastic. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; I'd rather not see GA awarded here. I think that would complicate the process to little benefit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * A lot of this discussion has taken an unintended detour into discussion of GA culture and I'd like to try to re-focus on the intent, which is to require a "pre-review" of some kind before coming to FAC. I think this will normally involve a PR or ACR-like review process rather than a GA assessment. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think introducing new steps (or making more steps obligatory) instead of consolidating already existing steps will only have the effect of further dividing the reviewer pool and create more or articles to jump through. They point shoul be to simplify the process of review and further collaboration, not to add bureacracy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think when we talk about A-class we're really talking about Milhist; Roads and Tropical Storms used to have active A-class processes, but the links indicate that's in the past. My experience with suggesting A-class processes was the same as Ritchie's: people weren't interested. Maybe that's changed, I don't know. I know that more PRs get archived without comments now than previously, and the comments I see aren't necessarily going to be helpful for FAC prep. A fair amount of B-class reviewing still happens; is that worth considering as an option? - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But again, while it may help prevent newcomers from nominating things which aren't appropriate, you're going to hugely backlog GAN for little benefit in so doing. Why should Wehwalt's coins, Ealdgyth's bishops, my paintings etc all be shoved into GAN—where, being on topics which don't often get much interest at GAN, they're likely to languish for months—when we obviously already understand how to write for FAC? (I've made 39 FA noms, 38 of which were promoted and the 39th was rewritten by a third party while it was at FAC so failed on stability; 22 of the 38 went straight to FAC, bypassing GAN; most of the other regulars will have a similar pattern.) The alternative, of creating a tier of super-users who are exempt from the requirement to go through GAC or PR first, is likely to provoke howls of protest and will probably discourage users even more from nominating articles, since they'll be made to feel like second-class citizens if they have to comply with a requirement which everyone else is exempt from. I could accept requiring GA first for any editor's first nomination. &#8209; Iridescent 16:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, said that (require only for a first) in the first response to this thread. Can you word a proposal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First time nominations seem to always get spot-checks, so there is precedence for some kind of differential treatment. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Time might have come to abolish all of the existing review processes and create a single consolidated review process that assesses all articles on a single scale - so that a single review determines the quality of the article and gives explicit instructions for how to reach the next stage. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but in reality, the DYK/GAN/FAC process already is that. The problem is mostly the backlog. People complain about qpq on DYK pushing through some articles with errors, but the situation before then was not enough reviewers and a huge backlog; I wonder if a "mega-qpq" could be created for the GAN backlog -- both FA and GA submitters have to review a GAN. (I would not require that an FAC submitter review another FAC, as that area has some good specialists and there is an art to it).  {{u}Wehwalt}} has a good idea that failed FACs might have to go through GA or PR before resubmittal.  My own experience is that PR is useless unless you happen to have a specific person you can ping to do it.  Personally, I basically use GAN as my FAC PR.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  18:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that currently QPQ is the only thing that works - this is true also for FAC which is why small groups of reviewers and writers stick together and work on similar stuff and review for eachother, and also really for GAN where you are more likely to get a review if you know someone you can ping. I dont think anything is wrong with this, it is a form of collaboration and as long as the criteria can be evaluated relatively objectively the risk of bad passes is not that high I think. But we have a process that requires three or four differet reviews with different reviewers and different criteria - when we could have a process that has a single set of criteria and which undertakes one review and assigns the status that the quality of the article warrants. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest requiring GA only for the first nomination for an editor (not counting failed nominations), and then see what works. We can consider more drastic solutions if that doesn't do enough. My issue with the ACR/PR proposal is that PR is almost useless, and very few projects have a functional ACR. --Rschen7754 00:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Very good suggestion, Ian. I'd hate to see even more articles prematurely go to FAC than there already have been, and a PR prerequisite would definitely improve quality and chances of successful FAC's. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * and, one thing that would help is if nominators were more willing to point out that nominations aren't ready and should be archived. I've done that a couple of times lately, but to no avail. WP:FAC says: "A nomination will be ... archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." If we do that, should we ping you to make sure you see the comment? SarahSV (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say in practice we generally archive unprepared nominations quickly. Sometimes we archive them before anyone even comments if the case is clear. If you think something has slipped through the cracks, a ping always helps because we might not see it until the next time we go through the whole list (I generally go bottom-to-top over the course of hours). -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'll do that next time. Perhaps reviewers could be encouraged somewhere to suggest that if something isn't ready it be archived. SarahSV (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Preparedness examples
It struck me that it might be a good idea to look at some examples. Here are three FACs for which I did very long reviews. I should add that I think in each case the article was a worthy FA (and in fact Taiko and AI Mk. IV radar are two of my favourite articles). Only one of these was from a nominator with no prior FA experience. In one case the nominator asked me afterwards to review another article they were considering bringing to FAC, which is the same instinct as PR -- get your article reviewed by other editors first. The policy change we're discussing would not have affected two of these three; they had already been to PR and GA. If we're only considering that change for first time nominators, it wouldn't have affected any of them. Ian, Laser brain: can you give examples of nominations in the past year that you feel might have been beneficially redirected to PR and/or GAN? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy Type-0. My review was four pages long on a large screen.  The nominator, ProtoDrake, had three previous successful FAs.  The article had been to both PR and GA.  There was no feedback at PR.  The article was promoted.
 * Taiko. My review was seven pages long.  The nominator, I, JethroBT, had no prior featured articles.  The article had been to both PR and GA, as well as a prior failed FAC.  There was no feedback at PR.  The article was promoted.
 * AI Mk. IV radar. My review was nine pages long.  The article had not been to PR or GA.  The nominator, Maury Markowitz, had one previous successful FA.  The article was promoted.
 * As the author of one of these, let me put in my rather cynical 2 cents:
 * PR is dead. We need to stop talking about it as a solution to anything.
 * Many articles have no A-class path. My recent article on LIFE is one example. So that leaves us with...
 * GA. Now GA is fine, but generally the overlap with FA is very large, and with the way the over-citation crowd has dominated in the last five years, my GA experience is basically that it's "FA but I didn't look very hard".
 * While I understand the desire to make other people do the "easy stuff" like image tag verification, I debate that anything will really change. A good review is based on the reviewer's interest in the topic, and that's essentially hit-and-miss. I have, on the other hand, found A-class to be very useful, and I think that's because it's topic focused. So perhaps we should be talking more about topic focus and less about the workflow? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As one of the nominators mentioned, I must say that I've found PR to be an increasingly unreliable means of checking an article prior to FAC. I think I agree with the above statements of . --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Emphatic statements such as "PR is dead" exaggerate the position – when I looked at WP:PR yesterday there were 64 articles there, of which 38 had some form of  comment, ranging from a few lines to thorough, detailed reviews. The 26 without comments are generally the more recent nominations. True, this is not a healthy situation compared with, say,  a few years ago, but it is not death, either; the system is fixable, given a will to do so. If GA is to be seen as a required preparatory step before FAC, we would need to make it absolutely clear that, given the differences in standards,  considerable further work might be necessary after  GA promotion  before an FAC nomination was viable. There have been many instances (the recent Gospel of John a case in point) where a GA pass has been followed by almost immediate nomination at FAC, and these  nearly always come to a painful end. Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that clearly the lack of reviewers affects both PR and GAN as well as FAC, and therefore simply pushing articles around between the three review processes is not going to solve the problem. We have to face the fact that we have too many review proecesses for too small a pool of reviewers. We should try to find a way to use reviewers better, to encourage reviewers to move between different review types and to find ways to streamline the review process. We would not be solving anything by sending FACs to PR, we would only move the problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Brian, you'll forgive me for pointing out the irony of your opening statement compared to your closing, because I do agree with the overall sentiment. But as a counterpoint, I've posted to PR several times and received zero comments, while that has never occurred with GA, and I think my experience is typical. But to the main point of your post - if GA isn't a useful prep for FA, and I personally don't believe it is, and PR is in the state I found it to be, then I agree completely that suggesting sending FAs into other processes is unlikely to fix any problems.
 * Which brings us to the valuable question: why isn't GA a good prep for FA? In theory, the prose review in GA should reveal the same list of problems as FA. But that's not what happens. In contrast, MILHIST's A-class generates better suggestions about content than even FA IMHE(xperience). I believe this is due to topic focus, both because it concentrates the interested eyeballs and that the list itself is shorter. I know when I look over this list I see maybe one article I'm interested in. It's hard to maintain my interest. On the contrary, when I peruse MILHIST I'm interested in lots of articles.
 * Unless I am seriously atypical in this regard, I think we should be considering how to use this effect to our advantage. I know I have exactly zero interest in reviewing image tags, yet there are people here who basically do only that. How can we best use these very separate sets of talents and interests? Let's talk about that before we hand out GA and PR as solutions when they largely duplicate the problem.
 * So, for arguments sake, consider this alternative: let's have a two stage process with reviews of article content and reviews of technicalities. A nom here starts by being transcluded to the appropriate existing review process, if one exists, or the existing list here if it doesn't. In order to continue, the article has to demonstrate a certain number of examinations/reviews. This is largely how it works now, but not formally. Once that has been demonstrated it goes into a second set of tests that is largely mechanical, image tags etc. There's a time limit to address issues here as well. Even if it fails to meet those requirements in the required time, perhaps it meets GA and can be given that.
 * This would merge four review processes and two awards systems. I believe it would also make the process much more clear than the wishy-washy "you might want to do PR..." suggestions and replace it with "you must get A-class to apply for FA, and B-class for GA". I also believe it would generate better reviews because the lists would be more focused.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no "prose review" at GA since the wonderfully subjective criterion of "excellent prose" does not exist at GA. Also, as Dank demonstrates below, requiring A class to be reviewed for FA would mean that we would only have Milhist articles at FAC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I followed everything up until that last bit. How would it work to make A-class a requirement for FA, when only Milhist currently does A-class reviews? (A-class reviews at Tropicals Storms and Roads are stalled, and no other wikiproject that's been asked has had any enthusiasm for A-class, that I'm aware of.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's fair to say that WP:HWY/ACR is currently stalled - I'd say it's more inactivity of (potential) nominators. Articles are still making it through there, though at a pretty slow rate. --Rschen7754 18:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AUS/ACR is definitely stalled. WikiProject Australia/Assessment/A-Class Review/Philip Baxter has been at A class for months without reviewers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

FA Cup?
So I've been doing a lot of research on the GA Cup and the GAN backlog recently and after reading through this I thought one tactic that GAN has tried and FAC has not was the Good Article Cup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's been any sort of drive which rewarded editors for FA reviews. I see the benefits being two-fold:
 * It encourages existing reviewers through healthy competition. For the juggernauts who already review a lot, it allows them a healthy way to compete with each other. It also helps to motivate existing reviewers who may be burned out from reviewing a lot of nominations.
 * It creates a structure for editors new to the process to get into FA reviewing. I think part of the apprehension in a lot of processes is the lack of structure: if you have a question, who do you ask? If you mess up, will someone notice and help you fix it or just yell at you? A competition would have judges who could be approached with questions by new comers and the editors would know that their reviews would be looked over by others who would tell them what they did wrong or how to improve. It's kinda like mentorship without the name or any of the obligations.

I think it's something worth thinking about. I'm not sure on the logistics like point values or how points would even be awarded, but I'd rather know if this is something people think is a good idea before working out a full proposal like that. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be an overlap with WikiCup, which already rewards FAs with a points system? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The WikiCup gives points for writing an FA, I'm thinking we award points for reviewing FACs. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always been loath to introduce any kind of reward culture for reviewing FACs, because it then follows that we must introduce a system of judging and codifying the quality of reviews. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with Laser brain on the No Awards. This may be hypocritical given that I occasionally verge over into crustiness, but I think a Welcome Committee and Mentoring would be much better. All personal, no rewards. The big prob, of course, is no one has time to do this. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion on this. I'm hoping to understand your position better, would you be willing to expand on why you're apprehensive? Especially with regards to your apprehension of a "reward culture", I can guess at some reasons why, but knowing some of your concerns may help them be better addressed. Like, if a system were developed that didn't require codifying the quality of reviews would you still be apprehensive (not to say that I have a solution to this effect, just trying to see if there's a common ground and where it lies)? Thanks. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also against rewards, and also wonder about the proposals on this page that use an extra FAC slot or two as incentives, where the reviewers for those articles are to come from. My objections are not philosophical, but practical. I see adding complications to the process as likely to provoke conflict, and using slots as incentives doesn't help free up reviewer time for languishing articles, which is one of the goals of this discussion. Possibly first time nominators could be urged to request reviews of their articles from established nominators. Most people when asked for help, will.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we are we dismissing this too quickly? Are there any studies that show what impact rewards have? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a very long and unfortunate history of rewards-culture attracting shoddy work. Quality work is produced by editors who value quality work; editors who value rewards figure out ways to skate by with minimum quality. I have said all I will say here. Please do not step on my cape as I leave. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree that the accomplishment of attaining the FA star itself is the best reward. There may be other things that flow from that (Triple Crowns, FOUR awards, etc), but the reward itself is a job well done. In that vein, I agree that those of use who work to produce quality content want others to do the same to prevent any tarnish on the star itself.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mont Blanc massif article history
Something odd has happened to the article history template on Talk:Mont Blanc massif; it's there if you look at the wikitext, but nothing displays. Can someone who understands the template take a look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Looks like FACbot got confused with the article's DYK information (maybe with the convert template, dunno) - could you have a look at this one please? GermanJoe (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the template-within-template problem. Already fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC mentoring: a proposal
From the discussions in the long earlier threads dealing with various FAC issues, User:Mike Christie and I have fashioned a proposal addressing the question of mentoring at FAC for inexperienced nominators. We don't see this proposal as a general remedy for FAC's problems, real or perceived, but as a possible means of improving one particular aspect. We would be pleased to have your thoughts.
 * Mentoring
 * The first nomination at WP:FAC by an editor, and any subsequent nomination by that editor before his/her first FA promotion, will require the formal involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination.
 * Any editor who has taken at least five nominations successfully through the FAC process is qualified to be a mentor. It is not essential that they have expertise in the article's subject area, since there are many aspects of FAC other than content. Editors who are qualified to be mentors can be found by reviewing the list of editors with FAs.
 * To obtain a mentor for your nomination, you may approach any qualified editor or post a request on the FAC talk page.
 * When you nominate the article at FAC, the mentor must post a note to the candidate page indicating they agree the article is ready to be nominated.
 * It is the nominator's and mentor's joint responsibility to work out a modus operandi. A mentor is not obliged to do any more than agree that the article is ready to be nominated, but they may do more if the nominator and mentor agree, up to and including equal partnership and co-nomination.
 * A mentor who does not conominate may choose to support; this is expected, as they should not agree to the nomination unless they believe the FA criteria are met at the point of nomination.
 * If for any reason the nominator decides that the relationship has failed before the article is nominated, the nominator may end it and seek a replacement mentor.

We would be pleased to have some feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I mentioned earlier that mentoring was the only conceivable path (I'm against a permanent system of rewards), but also wondered whether it was possible, suggesting that no one has time. In that vein, do we have any feeling for how many first-time noms come through per month, and how many experienced FAC editors we have still active, and how active they are? In other words, how bad woud the workload be per willing mentor? Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Brian looked at the FAC page on the 30th of July, and here are his numbers, quoted from an earlier discussion: "There were 49 nominating editors on the page, either singly or as conoms. Eleven have 0 stars, 11 have one, three more have 2, 3 or 4. So that's 25 (just over 50%) from editors new or fairly new to the process. Six of the  seven longest-standing FACs are from relatively inexperienced editors."
 * As for willing mentors, all I can tell you is that I would be willing to be a mentor, for at least one nomination, and more if possible. Nominations that require a lot of work to bring to FAC standard take a lot of time to work on, and I don't think I could take on more than one or two of those at a time, but some new nominators bring very well-prepared articles to FAC.
 * I might also add that although the proposal says the mentor has no obligation other than to agree that the article is FAC-worthy, my approach would be to try to get the article ready for FAC if it's not -- essentially I'd do a FAC review, and then work with the nominator to fix it to the level I can support. One reason I like the mentoring idea is that it's already happening -- it's just happening on the pages of FAC itself.  Moving that activity to a mentoring function that precedes FAC would, I hope, make FACs in general run faster. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging WPMH lead coordinator for feedback. The Military History project has Open tasks to alert interested reviewers re reviews pertinent to their project.  A number of WPMIL editors also land at FAC. If FAC sets up the mentoring structure, could WPMH add any related Military mentoring requests to their Open tasks page? — Maile  (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Setting up a mentor program would begin to draw away noms that otherwise would have been in GAN (i.e., they would try to skip other content review processes). Do we want nominators with fewer than 3 FAs to take their efforts through GAN or A-class or PR first? Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree with your premise. If I were to mentor an article that I think should go to GAN first, I'd say so, and refuse to agree to nominate.  Other mentors might behave differently, of course, but I think that would be a good approach for mentors to take.  To your second point: we have had previous discussions about requiring GAN or PR, and have come to no consensus.  If I have enough energy this evening I might look at the current FAC page and see which articles have been to GA and PR and which have not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't saying every article should go through GAN or PR before FAC; I was saying that editors requesting mentors should take the target article through GAN or PR or MILHIST A-class first... Also, the prob with "I'll just send them back to GAN if I think it needs that first" is that nominators will go mentor-shopping for a second opinion instead of going to GAN or PR or A-class. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a table of nominations since 19 May, here; so far it contains all active nominations and a couple that have been archived or promoted since then. I should be able to finish it tonight.  One thing that's already clear is that it's pointless to require GA; almost every nomination is already a GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that (even without the figures to back it up) which is why Andy and I recommend every article go through PR or ACR first -- I think GAN is great for what it is, but as FAC preparation it's hit-and-miss since it's a single reviewer only, gives the nominator no experience of a community review/assessment, and the distance between GA and FA criteria is not so small that the one necessarily follows easily from the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While it is generally speaking a laudable proposal, I wonder to what extent the mentor will be deemed responsible if anything goes wrong outside the bounds of FAC, for example with plagiarism or sourcing that looks good but proves on closer examination (not by the mentor) to be fictional or exaggerated. Or to be POV in a way not appreciated by the lay reader. I try to help as much as time and enthusiasm permit, but this sounds like something I would be basically be vouching for, and that gives me pause.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would feel responsible to the same extent I do when I support a nomination, with perhaps a little extra burden in areas I sometimes omit in my supports, such as sources and images. If an article I supported turned out to have the problems you mention, I don't think I would regard it as my fault, unless it's something I feel I should have detected in a FAC review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm more concerned about the views of other people than my own. I think Iridescent put it very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't disapprove of the idea, but I worry that it might accentuate the already-existing trend towards discouraging people working in areas outside Wikipedia's comfort zones. As anyone who's watched GAN can testify, there are certain topics (medicine, the politics of non-English-speaking countries, chemistry, unfashionable sports like swimming and cycling…) where articles languish for months until they reach the "oldest unreviewed nominations" box and someone takes pity on them. Looking at List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations there are about 200 people who theoretically qualify to be mentors, but the actual number is far smaller due to retirements, blockings and deaths, and quite a few of those who remain are single-topic editors who only comment on things that fall into their area of expertise. I'd worry that mentor requests for articles on (for instance) chemistry or anatomy would struggle to find anyone willing to endorse them, since people without expert knowledge would be reluctant to endorse an article in case they'd missed an obvious technical howler, while articles on traditionally high-activity topics like videogames, ships, 19th-century paintings and hurricanes would be reviewed instantly, and thus this would make the systemic bias even worse. (Unless it's made very clear that the mentor-sign-off is only looking at prose quality and not concerned with accuracy and sourcing, I certainly wouldn't be willing to sign off on any article based on sources in a language I don't speak, since the vultures will certainly be circling and watching for anyone endorsing any article which turns out to be inaccurate or plagiarised.) Yes, this does happen already in that certain topics struggle to attract reviewers and are eventually archived, but at present the process happens in slow-motion; by creating a mechanism by which articles on topics which are already heavily represented are fast-tracked, this could easily make the Today's Featured Mushroom problem quite a bit worse. &#8209; Iridescent 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be wise to amend the second point in the proposal to specifically exclude content accuracy from the mentor's remit. I don't have much time today to address these points but will try and do so soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm still thinking through this, but how would conominations be handled, when it's one editor's first FA, but the other nominators have FA experience? --Rschen7754 00:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about saying the rule applies to whichever editor has the most FA experience? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I oppose a new requirement to have a mentor for your first FAC (to keep rules simple), but support any way to have help with it, as outlined below the table (a co-nom, a mentor or just an informal adviser). I think it would be helpful if a user going on a first solo FAC had at least watched, better commented, a FAC before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's the kind of "do nothing and hope the problem resolves itself" attitude that simply ensures that problems perpetuate themselves. Why be so scared of trying something different? If after a trial period the proposed system doesn't work, then we'll know it isn't the answer. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The opposite of do nothing is not do anything. Of course a proposal must be opposd if one feels it is likely to exacerbate rather than solve the problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem I am addressing is that of the present very high rate of archived FAC nominations from first-time nominators, largely due to these arriving at FAC in an under-prepared state. In what sense are you saying that mentoring as proposed would exacerbate this problem? Voluntary mentoring (which you appear to support) might possibly work, but without some requirement is much more likely, I fear, to result in the continuance of the status quo; my experience of voluntary compliance is that it quickly becomes non-compliance. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose requirement of mentoring support offering mentorship as an optional help for new nominators.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision of mentoring proposal
In the light of the discussions to date, and the later figures produced by Mike, I've revised my earlier proposal as shown below. I'm aware there's a general mindset that always opposes any additional regulations on the grounds of WP:CREEP, but some problems will not resolve themselves. Barring some egregious factor which Mike and I have overlooked, may I suggest that we don't argue for a month over small details, but move quite quickly to asking the FAC coordinators to try this out for a period of a few months? We'll learn more from that than from any amount of theorising.


 * Mentoring
 * The rate of archiving (not promoted) at FAC for first-time nominators – more than 80 percent – is unacceptably high and may be a factor in the declining rate of FAC activity. To remedy this, the following scheme of mentoring is proposed.
 * The first nomination at WP:FAC by an editor, and any subsequent nomination by that editor before his/her first FA promotion, will require the formal involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination.  This also applies in cases of joint nominations  where none of the co-nominators has yet received an FAC star.
 * Any editor who has taken at least five nominations successfully through the FAC process is eligible to act as a mentor. A full list of editors who are thus qualified can be consulted at WBFAN, while  a shorter list of those believed to be currently active can be found  here.   (NB. this draft list requires further work)
 * To obtain a mentor, nominators may approach any qualified editor, or post a request on the FAC talk page. It is the nominator's and mentor's joint responsibility to work out a modus operandi;  this may involve anything from general advice,  up to and including equal partnership and co-nomination.
 * Mentors are not expected to vouch for an article's technical accuracy, but will give attention to the quality of the article's prose, the adequacy of citation, reference formatting, and general presentational and MoS issues. This work should largely precede the nomination at FAC.
 * When an article is nominated at FAC, the mentor must post a note to the candidate page indicating they agree the article is ready to be nominated.
 * If for any reason the nominator decides that the relationship with the mentor has failed before the article is nominated, the nominator may end it and seek a replacement mentor.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brian; I'd like us to try this out. It's clear we need to do something and trying this for perhaps six months seems like the right next step to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , What's the status on FAC tool? — Maile  (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's not get ahead of ourselves -- there hasn't really been much discussion about this and I'm not yet convinced this is a way we want to go at FAC. I suggest we stay with the mentoring proposal for now -- there's been a fair bit of discussion about it and, as far as I can see, a reasonable amount of support for the idea in principle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the proposed tool would be independent, and although I'm sure it will be helpful in that role, we'd have to have more discussion here before it could be included on the FAC page in any way. I don't think we should treat it as an alternative; it addresses a different issue than mentoring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One quick thought that springs to mind is that we probably ought to draw up a list of people willing to act as mentors to strangers, together with fields of interest, before this goes live. It's no secret that WP:WBFAN contains some less-than-sociable individuals, and we presumably don't want well-intentioned newcomers with poorly-written articles of which they're nonetheless very proud picking names from the list at random and being flamed to destruction by some of our more colourful characters. &#8209; Iridescent 22:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is probably a sound idea. I have thinned out the WBFAN list by removing the obviously retired or inactive editors, but I believe that when/if the scheme is implemented, the list of willing mentors will probably be much shorter – maybe a couple of dozen, a few more if we're lucky. A group of people who have shown some positive commitment to the scheme will obviously be better than a bare list. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Requiring mentoring is a really bad idea - it would only reinforce the impression that FAC is some kind of elite club. A voluntary scheme is a good idea, but a compulsory one is terrible. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Initially I thought in terms of a voluntary scheme, but was convinced by discussion, and particularly by the figures, that if we want to resolve this problem we need to be bolder. The object here is to bring more editors successfully through the FAC process, not as you suggest to keep them out of an elite club. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that it is the wrong approach to create a requirement for first time nominators to have a mentor or a conominator. Rather it would make sense if reviewers simply made an extra effort to be mentors to newish nominators during reviews - this would entail actively helping in improving the problems that are identified and spending some time teaching how things are done during the review process. The problem in my opinion is not that nominators are unprepared, but that reviewers often do not realize that they have a responsibility to help improve the article that is under review and teach the nominator how to write an FA, instead of being simply judges checking off boxes on a rubric and saying yay or nay. I think this could be improved by changing the language in the instructions for reviewers to include mention of the reviewers function as including an element of helping nominators improve the article to meet the criteria, to mention that new nominators should be given particular attention and support. And then somehow identifying new(ish) nominators on the nominations page. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is a particular view of how FAC should work. This would make FAC into a form of PR targeted at featured quality.  If there's consensus that we should do that, then maunus is right that mandatory mentoring is a bad idea, but I think improvement, and the validation of that improvement, should be in separate processes.  I also think that what maunus is asking for is already present in many FACs -- many of my reviews over the last few years have been extended improvement sessions, and I'm by no means the only reviewer to have that experience.  To take two specific current examples: I just reviewed Eega and Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) at PR.  Eega has been to FAC once and is by no means ready to come back; it's better to do that work at PR -- but it had already been to PR before FAC. At the first FAC (withdrawn, but heading for failure) it took input from several experienced editors, any of whom would probably have recommended against FAC.  (Though I should note that at least one very experienced editor did support the FAC.)  As it was, it absorbed three times as much reviewing energy as mentoring would have.  Mandatory mentoring might have kept the improvement work out of FAC, without hurting the article.  Conversely, Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) was at PR with a note saying the primary author (who has no bronze stars yet) wanted to go to FAC; I reviewed it in that light and have supported it now it's been nominated here.  The difference in resources used, both time and labour, is striking.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a "particular view of how FAC should work", but I think that given that this is a collaborative encyclopedia it is the obvious choice for how it should work. I know that many reviewers think of FAC as a quality control process that is somehow separate from the social and collaborative aspects of the encyclopedia, but I would contend that this is exactly the reason that FAC is doing so poorly in terms of promoting content and in terms of attracting reviewers and nominators. If we want wikipedia to be sustainable then everything we do, including quality control and improvement, should include a collaborative element that can teach the skills necessary for improving the encyclopedia to new editors. When we spend more time giving new editors negative experiments by putting down stop blocks for them through rules and requirements than we do teaching them how to build an encyclopedia we are slowly making it impossible for ourselves to succeed. The only way new editors can learn how to write FA quality articles is by helping them - that far the mentoring proposal is correct - but where it fails is in that it still maintains that reviewers are to be opponents of the nominator instead of collaborators. Having published some peer reviewed articles in academic journals I have met some reviewers with that same attitude, but luckily they were a distinct minority relative to those reviewers who were supportive and helpful and demonstrated an active interest in improving my manuscripts so that they could be published. It is thanks to those reviewers that I learned enough about writing articles that today I feel comfportable teaching it to others as a reviewer myself. This anecdote is simply to show that even in academia peer review is a social and collaborative process, not about setting hoops and bars that others have to jump through and over to get some mark of distinciton in the end. It is about creating a culture that produces high quality knowledge and which is sustainable at the same time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your logic. Mentoring is intended to increase and fortify the collaborative element in article preparation; it is not a set of hoops and bars as you put it. The hoops and bars, if you want to used that phrase, are the FA criteria, which everyone has to satisfy; some through experience can hegotiate these much more easily than others. Why not formalise a policy whereby the less experienced are helped to do so? If we set up the procedure on a voluntary basis, would you support it? And if on that basis it failed to make any impact, would you then support making it a requirement? Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the required mentoring proposal puts the burden on the nominator (and the formal mentor), when i think it is actually the reviewers who should be mentored so that they will learn making the mentoring of new nominators an inherent aspect of how reviewing is carried out. The point is that a good reviewer is not someone who just makes sure the bar is kept in the right place, but someone who teaches others how to meet it. Any good reviewer is also simultaneously a mentor.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what you are asking for is already happening in many cases; we have many good (in your definition) reviewers already. What I'd like to see is a process that naturally brings a reviewer who wishes to help in touch with a new nominator who needs that help.  The existing process doesn't do that efficiently enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, while I do agree that there are good reviewers in that sense, they clearly are not enough (or good enough) if 100% of first nominations fail. So yes, making a way for good reviewers to help first time nominators is fine - but if it is the first time nominators responsibility to find a willing mentor instead of it being all reviewers responsibility to mentor a first time reviewer then you have effectively just added one more hurdle to cross (and that hurdle will increase in size when the few reviewers likely to be willing to volunteer as official mentors burn out) - and you have done nothing about the more deep seated cultural problem of FAC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me if this is WP:Perennial, but since we're all in a hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya mode, has anyone ever suggested merging FAC with PR, and maybe creating a separate space for post-FAC counseling? Think triage. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lingzhi, but it would be better, I think, to deal with this mentoring propoosal before opening the dabate to other possible options
 * I agree with Brian that it would good to focus on the current proposal before moving on to others. Your idea is not exactly perennial, but it's been discussed, I'm pretty sure.  It was years ago.  I think the context was something like having a single process that would determine the output quality, with FA being a possible result.  You should be able to find it in the WT:FAC archives; I think it was around 2009 or 2010.  If you decide it's worth pursuing, let's wait till we see what the consensus is on mentoring before starting another discussion.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I oppose a formal requirement of a mentor, as much as recommend to get one. Imagine a first FAC on a scientific topic that no mentor would dare to touch. I think that another requirement would not make the FAC process more inviting, rather the opposite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Iridescent raised the question of specialist/technical content, and in my proposal I have specifically  excluded responsibility for technical accuracy from the mentor's remit. However, I can see that the mandatory requirement is troubling for some editors, and clearly that aspect of the proposal needs further consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am reluctant to support a mandatory requirement for entry. I'm more minded to the contrary.  I would be more likely to support one for a nominator who tries and fails, to have leave to nominate again without a lengthy wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me how simply making it easier for a "failed" nomination to renominate quickly is going to make success more likely, without some specific injection of help. From the comments on this page, it seems that for some, a sticking point in the mentoring proposal as given is the mandatory element. If the proposal was redrawn so that new nominators were "strongly advised", rather then "required", to work with a mentor, would that be more acceptable? In the event of an unprepared nom, the coordinators would then be able to recommend the involvement of a mentor before any resubmission. That way, a voluntary system might work, at least in some cases, and would give "failed" nominations a clearer path forward. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be fine with that, to allow a bypass for the sufficiently foolhardy, but I suspect taking the teeth out of it will make it less attractive to others here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I left a talk page message for every editor who's nominated a FAC this year and who did not have any FAs to their name at the time of the nomination? These are the people who would be affected by this proposal. I'd make it a neutral message, saying that the proposal is something that would have affected them, and might in the future, and we would like their input. Any problems with doing that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A good idea, but I'd like a little more discussion here first, so that we are clear as to what new FAC nominators are being offered. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary mentoring proposal
Summary: I've done a quick audit of comments to date on the mentoring proposal. Several contributors have indicated specific opposition to mandatory mentoring while accepting that a voluntary or recommended scheme might be beneficial. Others have expressed general support for the mentoring principle, with reservations as to how it might work. No one thus far has said "mentoring is a bad idea, full stop." My experience of voluntary schemes generally is that they don't work – people tend to equate "voluntary" with "unnecessary". Nevertheless, rather than prolong debate here I think we could give voluntary mentoring a trial. With this in mind I have modified my proposal again, to read as follows:
 * The rate of archiving (not promoted) at FAC for first-time nominators – more that 80 percent – is unacceptably high and may be a factor in the declining rate of FAC activity. To remedy this, the following scheme of mentoring is proposed:
 * Editors considering their first nomination at WP:FAC, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination.
 * Any editor who has taken at least five nominations successfully through the FAC process is eligible to act as a mentor.   A list of those who have indicated a willingness to work in this capacity can be found .  (list to be prepared)
 * Nominators and mentors will together work out their modus operandi;  this may involve anything from general advice,  up to and including equal partnership and co-nomination.
 * Mentors are not  expected to vouch for an article's technical accuracy, but  will advise generally on issues such as the quality of the article's prose, the adequacy of citation, reference formatting, and general presentational and MoS issues, with a view to ensuring that the nomination meets the FA criteria.
 * Mentors who are not co-nominators should declare the extent of their involvement at the point of nomination.

Whether something along these lines would work depends, I think, on three things: support for the idea from the FAC coordinators, and their willingness to recommend the process in cases of underprepared FAC noms; the willingness of enough experienced editors to act as "mentors"; and sufficient awareness of the scheme among would-be first-time nominators so that they are able to take advantage of the scheme.

Any further comments/suggestions would be appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I support this approach. - To make me enter my name on the list of mentors, I'd like to know if I can say no to a request, for reasons such as private life? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It will be entirely up to you to decide which articles you wish to mentor. No compulsion whatever. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to have the list of mentors organized by topics - so that one doesnt have to mentor articles way out of ones field of interest and specialization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aye.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One won't have to mentor any article – it'll be up to you to decide how active you want to be as a mentor, and which article you're happy to work on. Though I agree that an indication of subject preferences will be useful to nominators seeking mentors. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. It should also be possible to list yourself as a mentor available for any topic.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd support this. Now that key point is out of the way, a few comments:
 * First off, tks Brian and Mike for putting this proposal together -- in all its incarnations!
 * I agree with Brian that a voluntary process may lack teeth but also that it's pretty clear that, while most agree anything encouraging mentoring and collaboration is a good thing, they're leery of making it compulsory. For me there are two factors mitigating the lack of teeth; 1) it should help ensure that newbies who want to go it alone are not discouraged from nominating, and 2) we can easily check after 3-6 months how mentored newbies have gone as opposed to unmentored, and reconsider based on the results if it should be compulsory or not -- we should at least be able to tell if there's been a net benefit.
 * Naturally if this goes ahead I'd be happy to recommend the mentoring option to any new nominator whose FAC I'd archived, just as I currently often recommend PR (or ACR if applicable) under the same circumstances.
 * On a practical note, someone earlier on suggested that rather than cluttering up the current FAC instructions with the mentoring guidelines we have a "First-time nominators click here" link or some such, and then they get all this guff. I think there's merit in that idea, but we can iron out details in due course.
 * Lastly, a separate but related point: just as several people have been wary of making mentoring for newbies compulsory, so some have expressed similar concern with the coordinators' suggestion of making PR or ACR a requirement for all nominators (old or new). My support for the mentoring proposal is in no way conditional upon this, but I'd also assume that few would dispute that the more eyes on a nom before FAC the better, so unless anyone has serious objections Andy and I would like to couple any mentoring-for-newbies addition to the FAC instructions with a strong recommendation for PR or ACR for nominators in general, as opposed to the mere suggestion for PR we currently have there. That's just a heads-up, though, I don't want to muddy the waters with discussion of that here, let's get consensus on the mentoring first and we can talk about this other possible change to the instructions later if need be.
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your mention of PR has got me thinking how will this proposal affect it. I think a majority of PR nominations are done with a view of getting it FA ready and how many FA reviewers like you recommend it. With this proposal, a "significant burden" can be lifted from it. Since many of the PRs get closed without any comments, it led Tom to propose Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review/Archive_10 which was, in short, something like this proposal but even more informal. There an experienced reviewer could recommend such a direct nomination saying that the article is indeed FA/GA review suitable and close a PR, letting the article nominator know that they felt that it had a suitable chance to pass the review. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal and agree with making it voluntary but strongly advised. I don't have much to add that Ian hasn't already said, although I will note that we will circle back to the idea of recommending PR or ACR more strongly in the instructions in addition to the mentoring proposal. This is a separate discussion, though. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support this. But I would prefer one where the extra participant was not a mentor but a conominator to the nominator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

With both FAC coordinaors in favour, and no overt opposition to the proposal for voluntary mentoring, I will go ahead and prepare the page of instructions to which first-time nominators will be directed by means of a link from the FAC page. Unfortunately I will have very little wiki time during the next three days, so there may be a short delay. I believe the page should include a list of those editors prepared to act as mentors, rather than a link to a list of those nominally qualified to act, and I'll drop a line to those who are still reasonably active inviting them to add their names. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Although there have been no postings here recently there has been activity elsewhere, and a voluntary mentoring scheme is currently undergoing its slow birth processes. An announcement of the happy event should be made shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tracking FAC data
I've built a table tracking some data about FACs since mid-May; it's here and I'll be maintaining it there, for a while, but I've also pasted it in below in a collapsed box. It'll be more informative when we have archive/promote data on all these, but two things jump out immediately: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost every nomination already goes through GA.
 * So far, every nomination where the nominator had zero or one FAs under their belt has failed; every nomination where the nominator had more than that has been promoted. That is likely to change as more of these are promoted, but so far it's 100% correlation.
 * Eek. 100%. That's horrific. No wonder people complain FAC is "ingrown" and "a clique" etc (Although May–present is a short timespan).. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just added a few more rows, back to May 10th; I'm done for the night, but we do now have one nom that breaks that pattern -- a nominator with 4 stars had the nomination archived. The other seven I just added fit the "0 or 1 star -- archived, else promoted" pattern. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these figures, Mike -- just quickly, it looks like the table at your sandbox is more comprehensive than the one below; acc. to the sandbox, we have 4 nominators with more than 1 FAC under their belt getting archived. Is that right? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a couple more in the sandbox I haven't moved here yet; feel free to (or I can do it tomorrow); and yes, the pattern is more broken now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Worth drawing attention to is first-timers whose nominations were withdrawn or archived in fewer than five days. These are essentially "quick fails" who either didn't notice the instructions or were way off in their estimation of the article's quality. These would definitely have benefited from a mentor, or even a quick "Is this ready for nomination" sanity check. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the table! How about having just one, with a link? - I wouldn't draw the conclusion that FA is a clique, - it's just that to pass FA the first time is harder than any following, unless you have the wonderful condition I enjoyed for my first: that two experienced editors wrote their FA an co-nomed me. My conclusion: for a first FA it's helpful to have an experienced person on your side, be it a co-nom or a mentor or just an informal adviser. One of my FAs was archived (6 May, just before the table started), and it wasn't the first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. My first FA was playing junior to an experienced editor.  I wasn't even sure what FAC was.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whenever there's a number higher than 1 in the FAC#, the article failed at least once, which was also true for Catherine Zeta-Jones (withdrawn, would have made it otherwise I think). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever else the table shows, I think it indicates beyond a doubt that first-time nominators would benefit from some form of mentoring or co-nomination, to better their chances of getting their nominations through FAC successfully. The final wording of any proposal needs careful thought, as do a few other concerns that have been raised in the discussion. I'll try and come up with something. Brianboulton (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. I think even if people follow up and help nominators get articles peer-reviewed afterwards, or really try and help buff articles early in the FAC process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Updated data back to 2016
I've updated the data in my sandbox back to January; it now contains every FAC nomination since 1/1/16. Here are a couple of quick results from it:

How much does nominator experience matter? Quite a bit.

Does PR or A-class help? To be honest, I can't see that it does. I did a couple of tables to see if it makes a nomination go faster, but I don't see that; perhaps someone else would like to take a look.

If anyone else has any insights from this data I'd be interested to hear their comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What about just A-class? For all we know, a peer review could have been before the GAN stage. --Rschen7754 05:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Only 21 of the 210 nominations since the start of this year had A-class status; 7 of these are still at FAC. The remaining 14: And note that one of the failed nominations, Tibesti Mountains, got its A-class from Wikiproject Mountains (as far as I can tell), which may do a great job for all I know but which doesn't have the track record of, say, MilHist. I think this is too small a sample to make definite statements about the value of A-class to new nominators, but it certainly looks helpful. Of course A-class is not available for most articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My (non-scientific) impression is that very few military history articles which have been nominated for FA class before passing an A-class review over the last few years have become FAs. The Military History Wikiproject's A-class criteria were deliberately designed to be somewhat watered down FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Peer review option
Putting this on the table to see what users here thing. Over at peer review it is not uncommon for there to be pre-FAC candidates. I have been thinking about a technical way to tag these and display them at a separate page (such as we can already do for the existing categories if so desired). Would that help mentoring at all, or something that can contribute constructively to this discussion? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd worry that if we separated out "I"m planning on taking this to FAC" and "I'm just looking for general commentary on how to make this better", the result in practice would be that people would focus on the former, and the latter would wither on the vine, thus accentuating the "FA as an elite detached from the main body of Wikipedia" problem. That said, I'd be all for flagging the intent behind PRs ("I'm looking to take this through GAC but I don't think it's ready for FAC yet" etc), to give reviewers a better idea of where to pitch their comments; in my experience a persistent problem has been reviewers treating articles as if they were at FAC and nitpicking, which can be quite off-putting to well-intentioned editors who were only asking for advice on whether people thought the article was comprehensive enough, or whether it complied with the MOS. &#8209; Iridescent 10:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Image and source reviews needed
Guys, one of the things that contributes to the duration of nominations is the wait time for required image and source reviews (and occasionally spotchecks of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing) -- if anyone feels they can assist, there's the list at the top of the page... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ok. I wondered if it might be worth pointing out to nominators that as each FAC requires a minimum of 3 supports, that it stands to reason that reviewing 3 other articles would be prudent to avoid reviewing backlogs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And since many new nominators are unwilling to jump in and review immediately, for quite understandable reasons, and since some candidates get more than three supports, the actual average number of reviews needed from experienced reviewers is probably around five reviews for each nomination they make. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Reform Proposal
I am working on a proposal for a comprehensive reform of wikipedia's peer review system in my user space. You all's comments are very welcome at the discussion page so that I can use them to avoid pitfalls and take into account any hidden practical snags with the idea that I have. You don't need to be gentle, as I realize the proposal has to be extremely well developed to get any thing close to the kind of support that is needed to even move in that general direction. i will use your comments to develop the proposal - so dont consider the current stage to be set in stone. Please take a look at User:Maunus/PeerReviewReform. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Notified at WP:PR. Since this is actually a much broader proposal maybe notify the other venues as well? (GA, DYK etc) or is there any single overall place other than here which concerns every peer review process of ours? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not going to notify that widely just yet. Since the proposal is only in development I was meaning to get feedback in small batches so that it can be taken into account little by little before the proposal is finally proposed. But it is fine to invite the peer reviewers. Maunus

Another article history oddity
Looks like Featured article candidates/Shine (Gwen Stefani song)/archive1 was never processed by FACbot; Hawkeye7, can you take a look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Normally I would add it back to the nominations page and tell the FACBot to process it again. But in this case, another FAC namoniation has been processed, and things could get messed up. I will keep a lookout for similar problems. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the bot perhaps not set up to look for ? It's rarely used but it was on that one. -- Laser brain   (talk)  20:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bot looks for the FACClosed, and then checks whether it has been added to Featured log or the Archived nominations. Unlike the Featured Lists, it doesn't do all the work itself, per the original request from the FAC ccordinators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for another pair of eyes
If anyone is looking for something to review, I would appreciate another pair of eyes on Ellie (The Last of Us). It has four supports; I posted a tentative oppose on prose, without reading the whole article thoroughly, and the nominator has addressed the points I made. I've looked through again, and it's certainly improved, but I'd like to get someone else to take a look and see if I'm just a bit jaundiced from having thought about bad prose a lot more than usual over the last week. I think the "Reception" section is clunky, and I see a couple of infelicities elsewhere, but I'd like to get someone else's take. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a note to the effect that I agree the writing is weak & needs a c/e, but I dunno if I will have time to do the c/e. Several things on my plate... Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN
I'd like to be removed from that list. Does anyone know how that's done? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 18:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The list is generated from Featured articles promoted in 2016 etc, so you need to remove your names from those lists. &#8209; Iridescent 18:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that. I want all of them off. Who do I ask? My first was six years ago. Victoria (tk) 19:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's maintained by Rick Bot, so ask . I think the bot will keep putting your name back if you manually remove it, so Rick might have to program a blacklist of sorts.
 * The list is re-generated each day; if you remove your name from the by-year lists, you should disappear from the list next time the bot runs. (You might need to remove yourself from WP:WBFAN as well to make the bot notice the change.) &#8209; Iridescent 19:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. It's something I've thought about doing for a long time and have always wondered how to be removed. It does involve some work, but I think when I have time I'll to that. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's easily-peasily. I can do it for you, if you wish. Actually, if there are any FAs for which Victoria is the sole contributor then it becomes more complicated. I'll see if the bot's owner (if still active) has any answers. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I find a list of FAs arranged by editor name very useful for determining if a current nomination should be spotchecked for accurate use of sources without close plagiarism or paraphrasing -- this is a check we regularly apply to first-time nominators, and also experienced editors who haven't had a spotcheck for a while. Of course I respect any editor's wish to have their name removed, but I do think the list has practical value, however else it may be thought of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a message on User talk:Rick Block. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for leaving a message. It's something I need to give some thought to.  makes a good point and I have to mull it all over before I can express myself clearly. As I mentioned above, it's something I've been thinking about for a while (for lots of reasons) and some of the discussions above for some reason made me think of WBFAN and I thought I'd ask if I could be removed. I haven't yet read through everything above, didn't mean to be here at all today, got caught up more than I intended, and will return another time. At least I know it can be done. Victoria (tk) 18:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Request advice about Jane Austen
Requesting the collective wisdom of the FAC community regarding the situation at Jane Austen. The article was brought to FAC and archived this morning. The first issue is this: in this edit most of this text was copied over from Reception history of Jane Austen and possibly Styles and themes of Jane Austen. I would like to do the following: The situation is complicated by the fact that since yesterday or the day before, the referencing system has been changed against consensus, which muddies the waters even more in terms of trying to keep text/source integrity in regards to the copied text. I could use advice as to whether this plan is the correct course of action or whether other options would be preferable. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 14:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the article history for other such edits
 * Remove all the text copied from the subarticles
 * Request that if it's replaced that it be done with proper attributions in edit summaries and on the talk page
 * Try to mentor on this article because I have the subject knowledge
 * If you were to resume work with the brace of editors who were engaged in the today's FAC, that would be a good thing.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be a good thing. Given the match I'm finding between the text of the biography and the text of Reception history of Jane Austen, I'm ready to start trimming it all back, or preferably would like to roll back to March or February for a clean version. But I don't want everyone to start screaming at me and am wondering whether it's too drastic of a proposal, and whether anyone here has any other solutions. Victoria (tk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There were requests, by an isp in the first FAC, and me on the article talk page, for treatment of Austen's "themes". Fountains responded by adding loads on the history of Austen criticism, which isn't really what I meant or, I'm fairly sure, the isp did. There is too much on this, and the article still lacks a proper analysis of Austen's treatment of key themes such as the marriage market, money, class, gender, etc. not to mention money from slavery, currently hot. A concise summary of Styles and themes of Jane Austen would be good, especially the latter part. The current "themes" section should be trimmed & merged into "reception" which it mostly duplicates or overlaps. I'm afraid I only send a drone over the battlefield at rare intervals now. It's not yet ready for FAC for sure. Lots more reading and writing needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wadewitz and I bounced ideas about structure (well, she suggested, I followed) when I worked up Hemingway. Writing these sections are really hard in summary style but I've had some practice and know what needs to be done. The first stop is to gather the sources and start reading. Huge thanks for your input. Victoria (tk) 14:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question about FAC Consensus
Hello, I was wondering how many votes it takes to reach a consensus for a FAC. I apologize if this is obvious, as I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (especially the FAC process), but I would appreciate an answer so I can better gauge my current FAC and better prepare future articles. I believe that my current FAC, Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1, has reached a consensus to promote, but I am not certain and would appreciate feedback. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Aoba, we try not to think in terms of "votes" at FAC -- the coordinators seek to determine consensus from reviewers vetting an article against the FAC criteria, and the nominator working constructively with the reviewers to resolve any issues. That said, the convention is that when a reviewer is satisfied that the FAC criteria are met, they will clearly indicate their position on the question of promotion with a bold "support". Historically, a minimum of three supports based on a comprehensive vetting of the article -- plus dedicated checks for image licensing, source reliability/formatting, and accurate use of sources via spotchecks if needed (for instance for first-time nominators) -- has been required for promotion. The number is elastic though, partly because there are many variables -- if ten people review an article but only three explicitly support (and especially if one or more oppose) then we could say that consensus is still to be achieved; if a support is very brief and doesn't necessarily seem to be based on a good understanding of the FAC criteria then it probably won't count; if there are three or more supports but we're only a week or two into the review then we'd probably want to allow more time for other reviewers to comment; if there are three or four supports but the topic is controversial then we may want to see more commentary; and so on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I apologize for the really stupid question, but I greatly appreciate that you took the time to explain everything to me. My question was mainly to check on the status of my current FAC. Hope you have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all, there are no stupid questions at FAC...! Re. your own nom, I think one more set of eyes on it wouldn't hurt, but at this stage the overall impression seems positive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help again! I always appreciate more feedback, so I completely agree with you. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft essay on improving "Critical reception" sections
I've written an essay on how to improve the "critical reception" section of articles, which I feel are often very flawed. The essay grew out of a rewrite I did for The Left Hand of Darkness; the nominator, Vanamonde93, very kindly agreed to let me use his text as the example. Please comment there or here as you wish. I would like this to be improved with the help of others to the point where I could link to the article as a recommendation, when needed. Thanks for any feedback. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Now at User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections, for posterity.) Thanks for the note, I read through it and found it quite interesting. If there's a place to quibble, it's that while I recognize that attributing statements to individual authors ("X's Y said") Can get repetitive, and you definitely don't need to mention every critic, there's a fine line to walk between summarizing a few critics and getting into original research, especially with overarching statements of quality. For video games we can sort of get away with stating that something is well-received or mixed because we can point to a critic aggregator as backing evidence, but that's not often the case with most other forms of media, especially novels. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a point that a couple of others have made at the essay's talk page, and I agree it's something that needs care and editorial judgement. Practically speaking, if an article arrived at FAC with a crticial reception section that had overly-broad or synthesized introductions to each paragraph, and no other problems, I think that would be a lot easier to fix than some of what we see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

citevar, templates, apa mla etc proposal

 * For those interested, see Help talk:Citation Style 1. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We really really need someone with ongoing access to the full 8th edition of the MLA. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Manual review count question
Since we don't know if we're going to get an automated FACstats tool (it's been requested, but that doesn't mean we'll get it soon, or at all), I'm considering maintaining some stats manually. Would anybody here object if I kept a table of how many reviews and nominations people did? It would live in my user space and look something like this:

If I get the energy the names or numbers would link to the reviews that counted towards the number. I don't want to do this if people feel it's actually a bad thing to do. If I don't hear objections I'll probably work on it some this week. I would include only FACs nominated in August of this year or later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FA that gets moved subsequently
What should be done with the FAC page for an article that gets moved subsequent to the FA promotion, and where its previous name is now occupied by something else? I'm thinking of Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station, which will be TFA in early September; its FA was conducted at Featured article candidates/Wotton railway station/archive1 during 2010, but the article was renamed in 2015, and the redirect so created, Wotton railway station, is now a dab page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Should Featured article candidates/Wotton railway station/archive1 be moved to Featured article candidates/Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station/archive1?
 * 2) Regardless of the answer to the previous question, should the FAC be edited so that the links within it point to the article and not the dab page?
 * , do you know the answer here? -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, the FAC should remain as it is (pointing to the dab page), but the link from WP:FA should be updated. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring note
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This should be duplicated on the FAC page, and perhaps on the Wait! notice that pops up when you try to edit that page. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ling - this note doesn't need duplicating on the FAC page, as there is a link there, within the general instructions, to the mentoring page. The note on this page is intended as a permanent feature, to be seen widely, not buried in the middle where it may get overlooked or archived.   I'm returning it, (minus this commentary) to the top. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a note this morning at WT:GAN as well. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Some review numbers
It turned out to be a bit easier than I thought to gather review numbers, though to make it easy I had to do it via the FAC logs (here and here), which means the grouping is by month in which the FAC ended, rather than by month of nomination. The data is at User:Mike Christie/FACstats (which summarizes an offline spreadsheet which was too complicated to upload). I've removed some editors' names, though I can re-add them if they want me to: Ian Rose and Laser brain, since their FAC duties prevent them from reviewing, and Brianboulton, who has responsibilities at TFA that limit his time. I haven't looked around for the other editors with coordination jobs but can remove them too; I just took out the names I knew off the top of my head. I have also removed my own name since I propose to give out barnstars based on this data and I don't want to compete for an award that I judge.

With that said, here are the lead reviewers for the month of August, perhaps to be updated if any more are archived or promoted before tomorrow night.

Reviews
 * 7 reviews: Dank.
 * 4 reviews: Tim riley, Cas liber.
 * 3 reviews: Sarastro1, Moisejp, Aoba47, starship.paint, Checkingfax, Lingzhi.

12 reviewers did 2 reviews; 53 reviewers did a single review.

Image, source, and accessibility reviews
 * 12 reviews: Nikkimaria.
 * 4 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus.
 * 3 reviews: Cas liber.
 * 2 reviews: Imzadi1979, Moisejp, FunkMonk, Hchc2009.

There are several reasons not to take this too seriously. The main reason is that I'm counting a one-sentence Support from a first-time reviewer as the same as a five-page review from one of our most experienced reviewers; the work involved is not remotely comparable. I don't want people to feel berated because they're not on top of this list. I do want people who are high on this list to feel like the community is grateful for their work. Unless there are objections, once August is over I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list, along with the thanks of the whole FAC community. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring
It seems that it's for the first-time nominators, but as someone not very familiar with FAC (though I do have two FAs under my belt), could I have some help with Taylor Swift's article, before I bring it here? Also, it will be IndianBio's first nomination, I presume. FrB.TG (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly you may request help from a mentor. Although primarily intended for first-time nominators, there is no reason why you shouldn't seek similar help from the scheme. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . How does it work - do I approach a mentor from the list or should I wait for one of you to pick the article? FrB.TG (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Go to the thread at the top of this page, "FAC mentoring: first-time nominators", and click on the link in the first line there. That will explain everything, including how to find a mentor. Bear in mind that if you choose a name from the list, your first choice will not necessarily be free and you may need to ask around a bit, but I'm sure you'll find someone to help you. Brianboulton (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if he's not on the list, you want User:Dr. Blofeld for that one. &#8209; Iridescent 17:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Iridescent. Yes, I'm very sympathetic to Brian's mentoring scouting, but I don't think I'll have the time to commit to that long term. I'm always happy to help though if somebody needs it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This mentoring thing is a great idea. Makes the whole process seem much less daunting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Second nom
Ian, Laser brain, I currently have Josephine Butler running at FAC; it's had image and source reviews and (currently) has five supports and no opposes. Would you be OK if I added a second nom – this one a co-nom – for something coming out of PR? Cheers – Gavin (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is already allowed for everyone, no? "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes - I should have read the instructions again instead of relying on my memory! Thanks FunkMonk. - Gavin (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding quote boxes
I don't usually post MoS discussions links to this page, but this one might interest some FA writers, and since I only stumbled across it by accident myself I thought it would be worth letting people know about it. There's an ongoing RfC here about quotation templates. Initially this was set up as a general discussion, but it now includes a specific proposal section, here, to permit quote boxes for regular quotes, which I highlight because it's already a long discussion and I want to make sure people are aware that supports and opposes on at least one point are now being posted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The segment you're drawing attention to is basically an "anti-RfC" that is attempting to skirt guidelines by changing a template's documentation. People should actually look at the RfC proper, which is trying to address more broadly why and how particular quotation templates are being used, and whether the default block quotation style can/should be adjusted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to do something I have never done and hate to do, and respond to McCandlish's request that we consider Arbcom's discretionary standards for MOS disputes. I thought it was inappropriate when I first saw it, but I'm aware that there's a classic mistake to be made here that I don't want to make: the mistake of waiting too long for a dispute to "ripen", letting it get to the point where it's so toxic that everyone is screaming, before anyone steps in with some kind of helpful enforcement. (But let me quickly add: I'm not looking to block people or cause trouble; what would work better would be to shut down certain types of speech so that progress on working out disagreements can proceed slowly and rationally.) I'm hugely ignorant about "DS", as it's called, so my first step will be to talk with people who aren't ignorant about whether it's possible here, and if so, whether it's likely to work. A very quick description of the problem I see that can't possibly end well is for MOS regulars to ignore WP:OAS and established consensus at FAC, and rise up en masse against the brutality of FAC editors, with FAC editors simultaneously rising up en masse against the tyranny of MOS. The problem is that MOS and FAC are, and always have been, joined at the hip, even married, and these kinds of conflicts can devolve into a world of pain, for both sides. I'm not faulting the RfC ... rational discussion of the root conflicts, one at a time, is absolutely the way to go. But there have been individual jibes going back and forth for months, and the RfC seems to have exacerbated the sore spots and widened the conflict. My first stop is going to be User talk:HJ Mitchell; I know Harry knows a lot about DS. If I start discussing this anywhere else, I will add a note here to that effect. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For people who are looking for a one-sentence takeaway: there's a possibility of some kind of enforcement mechanism coming, but if that happens, I'm going to do everything in my power to make it 100% painless. - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DS are good for behavior problems, editwarring, tag-teaming, bullying, tendentious editing etc. I don't see how it is going to do anything to solve the underlying problem here which is a conflict between those who use the MOS and need it to be flexible to suit different editorial needs, and those who develop the MOS and want it to be strict, parsimonious and all-encompassing. This is a very basic philosophical question that goes to the root of what wikipedia is about and how to achieve it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Especially with regard to WP:ARBATC, they're commonly also enforced for civility issues. Calling people "stupid" in these discussions is contraindicated; just a word to the wise. AFAICS, the  of ARBATC enforcement has been over civility, actually.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont call people stupid, although if you insist I may be willing to allow you exemption. I call arguments stupid, when they are. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes ... that's one perfectly reasonable objection, and another is that I'm completely the wrong person to be thinking about this ... I wouldn't say that FAC and MOS regulars are my family, but there are analogies ... that is, it's just as inappropriate for me to be bossing around anyone here as it would be to boss around my brother or sister, and "bossing around" is certainly what admin tools of all kinds feel like. The problem I see here is years in the making ... on a basic level, some FAC people don't have a clear idea what it's like to work at WT:MOS, and how that process creates (on average! not in all cases) a certain authority and legitimacy ... and exactly the same can be said for some MOS regulars not understanding the same about FAC. That's always been true. What's different now is that some annoying conflicts between individuals are spilling over into a broader conflict ... and I think in the current environment, it's going to hard for people to focus on solving exactly those philosophical questions that you're talking about, Maunus. It's going to be drowned out by "Hey! You're being mean! ... No, you are!" I could be completely wrong about this, which is why I'm writing up something for Harry and some other experienced DS people to look at and evaluate. Everyone is invited to participate, of course, but fair warning: there's going to be a lot to read, and most of it will be deadly boring for people not into this sort of thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm not considering using admin tools myself, I'll look around for someone knowledgeable about DS who's generally considered neutral to use the tools and make the decisions. I'm saying that I could easily be faulted for bringing this up and trying to make the case that something needs to be done ... although I hope I won't be. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that probably in the end what we need is a community-wide discussion about whether we think exceptionless MOS rules are a greater good than editorial flexibility and the principle of decision by local consensus. But grantedly we would need to have a very good and thorough discussion without too much drama to even get to a point where we can ask that question in a meaningful way.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An equally likely subject is whether an alleged "FAC community" exists separate from, and is exempt from the expectations of, the wider, actual Wikipedia editorial community, and whether this FA club is acting as a faction, to enable both extended patterns of incivility by its "members" and to push WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions to prevent "outsiders" from having any ability to edit in articles with an FA label on them. There's a growing perception that FA editors are grossly misinterpreting WP:OAS to turn WP:OWN policy on its ear, and denigrating the value of all other editors, site-wide (an admin brought this up in quite a bit of detail at the still-open WP:ARCA discussion about infoboxes). Or then again, maybe we call all calm down and have a normal discussion; above on this very page we were making some progress on a compromise approach to adding a clarification of WP:FAC's wording, explaining the difference between OWN/VESTED-type control and appropriate stewardship.  That seems much more productive than pointing fingers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly there are no needless aspersions, fingerpointing or battleground mentality in this very civil message of yours...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I've been working on an email to send to Harry all day, and was getting ready to send it ... and now I see events have already overtaken me. For instance, Sarah has proposed that we create an alternative style manual above (and in the current climate, I have no idea how such a vote would go), and McCandlish has already been threatened with sanctions. Oh well. The gist of my proposal was to try to avoid sliding further down this slope, by characterizing the kind of posts that seem to be making the current problem worse, and to find someone neutral and familiar with DS to make the admin calls, and then to say: if the total number of "bad" edits (by anyone, on either side) goes above a certain level, then special sanctions would go into effect that would have the effect of reverting similar edits, or worse for the serial offenders. That wouldn't actually solve anything, of course, or change anyone's mind ... it was only intended to reduce the number of times people felt threatened or disrespected or overtaxed, with the goal of making it more likely that people would be willing to spend some time learning what it feels like to be a MOS regular or a FAC regular (or any kind of article review regular, for that matter). MOS, FAC, etc. do work, if imperfectly, and a unilateral "that doesn't look right, I'll just change it" at MOS or in an FA can sometimes get you into trouble. Some unilateral edits to FAs even violate policy, and part of the problem is that not everyone knows that. Personally, I find FAC regulars very easy to talk with, and I have no doubt that we could have made signicant progress on the WT:FAC end. For MOS regulars ... well, they're not always receptive, and to understand why that is, you have to travel a mile in their shoes, but I was hopeful that if FAC regulars disengaged, they would too, at least for a while. But ... there's a chance things have gone too far already ... I've seen only a small part of what's going on, so I don't know. I think I'll keep looking around and wait for things to settle down before I go back to work on my DS idea. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Answering a question: usually, novel dispute resolution proposals don't get anywhere on Wikipedia. Sometimes, if you catch people at a time when they're unhappy, but they haven't decided yet what to do about it, you can make it work. What I'm reading today tells me the time isn't ripe for my idea, and I'm a life's-too-short kinda guy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Finding a neutral party would also be difficult. There's a strong admin-pool bias against MoS because of the number of disputes raised about it (see comments in thread above for why this happens; if we shoehorned all of, say, the sourcing-related policies and guidelines into one policy, the same thing would happen and people would blame that page and its editors for a 1,000 things not connected to each other).   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are not getting backup from the admins, then how do you make what you want in contentious situations stick? I am not experienced in MoS disputes and am somewhat curious.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By presenting arguments with a more solid source, policy, common-sense basis, and studiously avoiding dramaboards over style matters. Even admins with an anti-MoS bias have to close RfCs and such in favor of consensus, or the closure will just get challenged (or actual editorial consensus will work around it to make it moot).  But if MoS's regular editors, or misc. editors seeking compliance with it, get personally attacked individually or as a group, no admin will ever do anything about it. I'll take this to user talk for a longer answer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

On further thought, I want to apologize for some of the above. My heart is in the right place, but I botched the execution, in the sense that people may have gotten the impression that I was pulling rank and threatening to block my fellow co-workers if they don't behave. If I had been able to follow through, then the plan would have become apparent. MOS is already under discretionary sanctions, and writers and reviewers generally are moving in the direction of "throwing off their MOS shackles" these days. Most Wikipedians know how to be careful during uprisings like this one, but a few don't ... and egged on by the crowd, it's quite likely that a few will go too far, and will be sanctioned by some admin. That's the effect of discretionary sanctions: blocks and bans are more likely, and can't easily be undone. If I had found an admin in time who understands the situation, and if they had become visibly involved in the question of how DS should work here, then they would have gained the first-mover advantage ... that is, other admins are generally less likely to act in an area (particularly a difficult area like this one) if another admin seems to have it covered. But I missed my window of opportunity ... sanctions were already threatened before I could act, and the anti-MOS votes had already picked up steam. Oh well. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I work WP:AE regularly. Discretionary Sanctions work when you need to remove an editor from a situation or from a topic area completely, because of persistently poor behavior like edit warring, battleground mentality, or personal attacks. It is a tool no one likes to use and I consider it to be a tool of last resort. I've said much more about it at the ongoing Amendment Request to the Infobox Arb case. Applying DS requires understanding of the topic area and the history of disputes therein—I see already that HJMitchell has misunderstood the locus of this dispute to be "about punctuation" rather than about behavior which is the reality. In light of that remark I'd rather he not apply DS in this topic area if it's all the same. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for him, but I can promise to stay out of it myself. Also, I won't vote, and I'll happily follow whatever path the FAC community chooses. I try to help when I can, but my bag of tricks is empty at this point. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we follow the path the Wikipedia editorial community as a whole expects?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to delegates
@Ian Rose, Laser brain; is there any chance I can request either permission to have two nominations open at once, or to pull or temporarily suspend The World Before the Flood FAC without the two-week wait. I'd like to push Hope through in time to run on 19 January (Obama's last day in office) if at all possible, as given the close connections between him and this painting it seems particularly apt for that day. (Plus, given that on that day either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be preparing to be sworn in, a symbol of "uncertainty, contention, conflict, beliefs unsettled and nothing established in place of them" would seem somewhat appropriate.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The World Before the Flood is a fairly short article, and if you'll give me a few hours I'll review it tonight and perhaps help it on its way. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Two at once is fine. Thanks! -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I'll give Hope a couple of days for other people to shake out obvious errors before nominating it (if anyone else wants to join in, please do feel free). Normally I don't really like rushing things through, but I think this is something of a special case as it's likely to be the last time for years that anyone is actually interested in it. &#8209; Iridescent 17:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Why there are only "image review" and "sources review"?
I've never seen "comprehensive review", "POV review", "length review" and other kinds of review. And how reviewers confident in comprehensive? It seems that they only check existing contents (e.g. prose, sources). --Reg just for a question (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything apart from image and source reviews (and sometimes spotchecks) is bundled into just a regular "support", unless the reviewer says that they're supporting only specific WIAFA criteria. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'm doing a review of a historical figure, I'll at least pull up a Dictionary of National Biography or similar article on the person, if there is one, and leaf through it if it isn't someone I'm very familiar, and there is usually a bibliographic note.  If there was a bio considered indispensable, or if the article had no books past 1948 and there had been two recent bios, I'd express my concerns. I also sometimes do less formal things, like plugging the name into amazon or eBay.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-09-29/Technology report
A pointer to a discussion about failed pings. You can now check a couple of boxes in your preferences to get notified when pings do or don't work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Top FAC reviewers for September
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of September (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).

Reviews
 * 14 reviews: Dank.
 * 8 reviews: Dudley Miles
 * 6 reviews: Cas Liber
 * 5 reviews: Brianboulton, John, Wehwalt, J Milburn
 * 4 reviews: Funkmonk
 * 3 reviews: SchroCat, Sagaciousphil, Cwmhiraeth, Nikkimaria, Tony1, Sarastro1, Coemgenus, Tintor2, Tim riley

15 reviewers did 2 reviews; 54 reviewers did a single review.

Image, source, and accessibility reviews
 * 16 reviews: Nikkimaria.
 * 7 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus.
 * 5 reviews: GermanJoe
 * 4 reviews: Cas Liber
 * 3 reviews: Coemgenus, Wehwalt

1 reviewer did 2 reviews; 3 reviewers did a single review.

To abbreviate my notes from the last time I posted this list: don't take this too seriously, mainly because a one-sentence support from a first-time reviewer counts the same as a five-page review from an experienced reviewer. Don't feel berated if you're not on top of this list; do feel like the community is grateful for your work if your name is on this list. I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)/archive2
I noticed over at Featured article candidates/Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)/archive2 the nominator has been capping users comments when that should only be done by the users who made those comments. Any thoughts? — <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 11:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)