Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive76

RfC regarding the use of "alt-text" for all FACs
Should "alt-text" be a requirement for all FAs? At present (per MOS:ACCIM and as expanded upon in MOS:ALT), it is part of our MoS and advised for WP:ACCESS reasons for those who are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment. Currently, its implementation at FAC is not universal: should we make it a requirement, possibly to be checked as part of an image review? - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's been a decade since it was discussed to death, but the underlying issues haven't changed. Alt-text is good practice and should be encouraged, but there are numerous occasions where it's not appropriate, and even in those cases where it appropriate the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians don't understand how to write it (as a general rule, if your alt-text for any given image is more than six words you're doing it wrong), and enforcing this would cause a huge amount of bad feeling as we'd be failing otherwise-fine FACs en masse. &#8209; Iridescent 20:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am finding online that 125 characters is a good limit (though shorter if possible is better). Is six words a rule of thumb or is that recommended somewhere?  Kees08  (Talk)   21:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 125 characters is the maximum at which screen readers can't handle it; alt-text should be significantly shorter than that. The canonical example is "dog leaps for a stick"; as concrete examples from a fully-compliant website, the alt-text of the first ten images in this story on the BBC News website is "Vic in the exclusion zone", "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant", "Gennady Laptev and his colleague working in Chernobyl in 1986", "Narodichi, Ukraine", "A researcher holds a radiation dosimeter", "Inside Unit 3 of the Chernobyl nuclear power station", "Map: Current radiation levels in the Chernobyl exclusion zone", "Red Forest, 4km from the Chernobyl reactor", "Przewalski's horses in the Chernobyl exclusion zone" and "Burayakovka". Basically, the alt text should be the necessary to give readers an understanding of what they're missing, and —as most Wikipedians believe—an actual description of the image. RexxS can give a more full explanation if you want all the technicalities. &#8209; Iridescent 21:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for kicking off the discussion here. The 'overwhelming majority of Wikipedians' don't know how to write an FA either, but those than can should be good enough in their approach to writing to be able to manage it, n'est-ce pas? You're certainly right to say that Alt text isn't appropriate in many situations, but the guidelines specifically allow for it not to be used for every image. Personally, I don't think that enforcing this would be any more onerous than having to jump through the hoops of any other part of our FA criteria - it's quite a low bar to have to hurdle, after all. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I take it you weren't around when they briefly tried to make alt-text mandatory at FAC? It can't be emphasised enough how much of a disaster it was, and caused bad feeling that literally lasted for years. If anything, we should be pushing back more firmly against the increasingly prevalent notion that the MOS is somehow compulsory, not introducing yet another level of bureaucracy for nominees to jump through. (If you want a concrete example of how big an issue this would cause, if "make the alt-text compliant" were included in FAC, then in your last three FACs was non-compliant.) &#8209; Iridescent 21:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't around, and I'm bemused it could have caused so much friction. You know (or at least I think I've told you before) about my attitude to the MoS: it's there for guidance, not a series of ten commandments that have to slavishly be followed (to the point I have been called "anti-MoS" and more); I think you and I are, broadly, on the same page on that front. I don't see alt texts as being another level of bureaucracy: to me they are a small tickbox to be completed (20 mins in total for most articles, if you have to struggle with them - mush less time and much more use than an IB, for example) - certainly less of a burden than many of the other accoutrements necessary for an FA. For those readers with a visual impairment I understand this is extremely useful (sometimes vital) for them. Yes, my Alts may not be great, but I disagree that every single image is non-compliant, although many of them are less useful than others: even a badly written alt is a whole load better than no Alt at all. - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Encourage it rather than enforce it I'd love to see alt text on all images in Wikipedia, but I was around in 2010 when we we lost User:Eubulides through burn-out, trying to get alt text implemented. I think that for some editors, alt text can be a seemingly insuperable bar, and I'd hate them to feel disbarred from the FA process if they would otherwise have participated. For, I'd be more than happy to work with you to find ways of helping and encouraging potential FA nominators to use alt text. But I'd really rather not enforce it.  For , the BBC website gets it wrong as well: alt text shouldn't contain information that can't be gleaned from inspecting the image - that's the job of the caption (otherwise, either folks who don't see the alt text miss out on information, or screen reader users hear the same info twice!). The BBC alt text should have been: "Victoria Gill walking along a road" (with caption: "Vic in the exclusion zone"); ""Gennady Laptev and a colleague" (the caption is fine, but you can't tell it's 1986 from looking at the picture); and so on. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let those who want it do it - another layer of work for FAC writers doesn't really motivate them (judging from my own experience), rather, those who really want it implemented could be given free reign to add it to FACs and promoted articles (a task force?), or maybe to all articles in general, if it is a general rather than FAC specific issue (as it seems to be?). I'd be more than happy to pass on that responsibility. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Encourage rather than enforce per RexxS for a number of reasons. I dont like scope creep, esp wrt MOS, which is frankly why FAC is so off putting to a very great number of fine editors; the perception is of form over substance. Also, if it is codified, as proposed, I don't see how that would work. I normally add if requested, but sometimes refuse as with , an extreme example, where any desc would have necessitated personal selective bias, and risked my adding uncourced addition of POV. A further worry is logical conclusion...wait 3 months and someone will demand that alt texts are referenced. Ceoil  (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - As it turns out, I've been alt-captioning very wrong indeed, . I thought I needed to detail the image in as descriptive language as possible to create the image in the reader's head if they couldn't see it. Try explaining the features of a map to a blind reader in six words or less. In other words, my alt captions for an image such as a detailed map can be several hundred words long.


 * Map of the substructure to Unas's pyramid. From top to bottom: Ascending corridor terminating at vestibule; horizontal passage leading from end of vestibule and terminating at the antechamber. Three granite portcullises guard the passageway at approximately the mid-way point from vestibule to antechamber. PTs present at the very end of the passageway: 313–317 on the north wall of the passageway, and 318–321 on the south wall. PTs of the antechamber clockwise from north to west: 302–312 north, 273–301 east, 260–263 and 267–272 south, and 247–258 and 260 west. Serdab lies east of antechamber and is not inscribed. West of antechamber is a passageway with PTs 23, 25, 32 and 199–200 on the north wall and 244–246 on the south wall. Passageway terminates into the burial chamber with PTs of the burial chamber clockwise from north to south; 23, 25, 32, 34–57, 72–79, 81–96, and 108–171 north, 204–205, 207, 209–212 and 220–225 east, and 213–219 south. The sarcophagus lies near the west wall of the burial chamber with no texts inscribed north, south or on the wall west of it. The gable above the west wall contains PTs 226–243. The walls of the substructure are colour-coded in the map. The ascending corridor, vestibule and horizontal passage up to about 1.5m – distance values are calculated from Sethe's "ungefährer maßstab" (approximate scale) – from the granite portcullises are lined with fine white Tura limestone. Starting from 1.5m north of the first granite portcullis to 3.4m south of the last granite portcullis the walls are lined with red granite, and the portcullises are made from red granite as well. The lining spans 9m of the wall on each side. The last 1.5m of the passageway is lined with Tura limestone, as is the entirety of the serdab and antechamber. The first 4m of the burial chamber (entirety of east wall, part of north and south walls) are lined with Tura limestone, while the last 3m of chamber are lined with white alabaster (part of north and south walls, entirety of west wall).


 * What do? Delete the alt-captions, replace the alt-captions with a phrase like "Annotated map of x"? Nobody's pointed out to me my egregious misunderstanding of the function of an alt-caption up to this point. :( Mr rnddude (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Making the effort to provide alternative text is far better than not having the text, so don't beat yourself up over it. Have a read of WAI Images Tutorial for complex images and see if you can incorporate your "long description" into the article, with a link or pointer from either the alt text or from the image caption. Alt text needs to be succinct, but you can be forgiven for using a dozen words when dealing with a complex image – alt=Map of the substructure to Unas's pyramid. See section xxx for full description.  You'll be improving the article for anybody who has images switched off as well as those using assistive technology. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thanks. I'll take a look at the tutorial you linked, and also see what I can move from the alt-caption into the body text. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No. The problem when we last tried to require this was that no one knew for sure what editors who use screen readers need. We were encouraged to write long detailed descriptions of the images. The next thing we heard was that people using screen readers had complained about it at Wikimania, so we stopped. According to WebAIM, alt text is any text that makes clear what an image is (e.g. "George Washington", not "an older man with white hair"), including text in the article and caption. There's no need to repeat that in the "alt attribute", which they say (if I've understood them correctly) can consist of  to avoid redundancy. We were told years ago that   or   were fine. Given the confusion, I think we should not require it. SarahSV (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No per Iri, Rexxx and SV; it seems from the above that many/most are still unclear what the alt text is supposed to do (and the BBC apparently). I've just looked at WP:MOSALT, perhaps for the first time in ten years (when I think it was pretty different) & found it fairly clear. But it could be clearer on what we are trying to achieve. I found the options of a blank alt and "refer to caption" useful & new to me. I'd almost favour making at least one of these compulsory. In a large % of cases a good caption will almost remove the need for alt text, I'd think, except for a blank alt to stop the screen reader reading out the file name.  I note the first example at the end contains well over 6 words: "alt=A red flag divided into four by a white cross slightly offset to the left." - 15 in fact, if short ones.  Poor old User:Eubulides!  Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm vaguely leaning towards "No" on this for a couple of meta-reasons. My primary concern for the purpose of this RfC is that expressed by and  above: we cannot afford to lose any more Eubulideses (Eubulidi?)!However, a possibly more fundamental concern is with the framing of the question. In one of those linked 2009 discussions I wrote: I get the feeling the discussion has an odd emphasis on the “This is too hard, we can't do it” angle, rather than “This is how and to what degree we are practically able to do it” (on which latter point reasonable editors may disagree). The question really shouldn't be whether to require accessibility in the FA criteria, it should be which specific measures should be required, to what degree, and what tools do editors need (e.g. shared alt text on image page) in order to comply.SarahSV's argument is a valid one (I agree with their assessment of the status quo), but I also think, as an argument, it has a flaw: the reason we have widespread confusion and lack of expertise in this area is because we as a project have done too little to work on it (requiring it at FAC or GAN being two potential tools in the relevant toolchest). All such efforts require periods of confusion, disagreements, failures, discussions, wrong paths taken, corrections, and so forth. What the extensive archive at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Alt text tells us is that starting by "making alt text required at FAC" is probably not a good idea today any more than it was a decade ago. However, I would argue that having alt text (and some surrounding issues) and accessibility a requirement at FAC is a desireable end state once certain prerequisites are in place. And the world and Wikipedia has changed since 2009: while the effort might land in the same place (or it might not), it probably wouldn't play out in the same way (for better or worse).What I would like to see discussed, with subsequent RfCs as appropriate, is what are the slow baby steps along the path that will eventually land at that desired end state? Is tooling a prerequisite perhaps? The WMF is working on structured data for Commons, and starting with captions for images. Maybe we should request they work on support for structured alternative text on Commons so that it can be shared between articles and projects? And reviewing for accessibility (alternative text being just one aspect of that) takes not just process but reviewers. Do we actually have anyone willing to take the lead on that, vaguely similar to how image reviews and source checks are handled today? If someone was willing to be the go-to person for accessibility reviews, and carrying the load for a good long while, we might be able to make it work; otherwise it probably won't.Nothing prevents reviewers who care about the issue from mentioning it in FA reviews now even if the criteria do not require it. That might be a good way to start. Perhaps there is some way we could mention accessibility in the criteria without making it a requirement to remind all concerned that it is an issue and encouraging them to go the extra mile? Some people mention MOS:LISTGAP as an aside in discussion threads when applicable, and similar type of gentle encouragement might move the needle at FAC too.Bottom line is that starting by adding alternative text as a criteria at FAC is unlikely to work; but I'd love to see effort put into more manageable and more likely to succeed first steps towards that. It's been a decade already (it's been a decade already?!?): let's think in terms of what can be achieved if we keep chipping away at it for the next decade! --Xover (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I think SarahSV's argument is ignorant horseshit. A poorly written Alt is better than none, and ignorance of how to do it should not be a bar to writing what we hope will be our supposedly best articles. Arguments along the lines of 'I don't know how to do it properly, so we shouldn't have to do it' is too laughable to be a basis of a serious argument. Sadly it looks like this won't pass, but people arguing that it's too much work to do or that they don't understand it enough is rather crass when we're trying to make sure our articles are readable for everyone - there are more people upset over ensuring computers can read metadata than there are people trying to make things better for the visually impaired. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, watch your language. Calling somebody's arguments "ignorant horseshit" is a clear no go. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I want your opinion on my language, I'll ask for it. The argument, in my opinion is "ignorant horseshit". If you don't have anything sensible to say about the substantive point of the discussion, then don't patronise people by telling them what to say. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still such a nice man. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pointless and inflammatory comment struck. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By you (shall I also strike "ignorant horseshit" as "pointless and inflammatory"). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And now, back on topic.  and, I am unclear where the notion that we lost editor Eubulides because of alt-text burnout is coming from.  When he was around, he was willing and able to help on alt text, and FAC indulged this passion of his.  I have quite a few other ideas about what caused the loss of Eubulides, which I will not commit to public print, and it was not alt text related at all.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Although it's most likely that other factors played a part in Eubulides' retirement, I am in no doubt, myself, that the extraordinary amount of effort he put into trying to make alt text useful on Wikipedia contributed significantly to his retirement. Perhaps re-reading his talk page for March 2010 will refresh your memory of where the notion came from. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, -- our editing interests quite significantly overlapped (neuropsych articles and FAC), and I followed his page closely always, and did everything in my power to indulge his wishes re alt text, but I am also aware of other issues that impacted his editing, that are best not disclosed here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your restraint is remarkable as always, . :) I was under the impression that the stress surrounding the previously linked discussions was a strongly contributing factor (in the straw... camel... etc. sense), but I'm happy to be corrected on that count. In any case, I just seized on Eubulides as an example of why trying to add this to the criteria now is a bad idea: someone is likely to end up burnt out, ragequitting, or getting themselves dragged to the dramaboards. And then the issue would be off-limits for another decade before we rinse and repeat. A baby steps approach is needed, which in turn requires agreeing on the eventual goal and then building stone on stone until the house is ready. --Xover (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * your wisdom is remarkable as always. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No. We shouldn't be making it harder for FACs to pass; it's hard enough already. The benefits are questionable anyway because of the concerns of people writing crap for alternate text just to check a box. --Rschen7754 08:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * An extra 15 minutes of effort for you to get a gold star? Doesn't seem to be that hard a step to undertake. The benefits are for those with visual impairments, and it won't be "writing crap" if people do it properly - something an image review should easily pick up on. Ignorance of how to do it, or laziness of not being bothered to do it, should not be acceptable. We have standards, and asking FA writers to reach those standards should not be a big deal. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's death by a thousand paper cuts. FA standards should not be meaningless bureaucracy but should serve to provide meaningful and high-quality articles for the reader. If too many standards got passed that did little for the reader, such as alt text, then yeah, I would probably forgo "the gold star" entirely. Not that I don't want to write more featured articles, but writing more featured articles doesn't put a roof over my head or food on my table. --Rschen7754 03:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Per Iri, RexxS, Ceoil, Johnbod & Sarah. Bringing it back to discussion isn't a bad idea because it's been a decade since we last discussed, when it was mandatory. The reasons for making it not mandatory haven't changed, and have been documented here (honestly, I didn't realize it's been a decade, but remember well writing very convoluted alt-texts which later had to be changed). Also, Ceoil makes a good point about scope creep and Johnbod about captioning in general. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I tried here, a couple of times, to get some clarification on exactly how to write alt text. The responses weren't unhelpful but don't fill me with confidence that I can use WP:ALT to write good alt text.  I would be much more enthusiastic about writing alt text if the guideline made more sense to me.  I think the first task here is making WP:ALT easier to understand and use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. As much as I loved editor Eubulides, who was behind previous FA enforcement of alt text, it was an enormous PITA.  Back then, there were gobs of reviewers in a very active FAC process, so we went with it, and it was still too much work.  In today's FAC environment, no way.  When Eubulides was active, we could count on him to help write the blooming stuff, which was always a challenge.  Without him, this is placing an additional burden on a dying process which is already struggling to even address existing standards.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lean support, but oppose for now. When I was taking a college-level English composition course, or other classes involving a lot of writing, we had guidance on how to manually craft a citation in APA/MLA/CMOS formats, so it was expected that our papers would properly use the expected format. Writing alt text to me seems like a similar writing skill, so if we can get good guidelines, we should have our best work apply that tool in the toolkit. I'll wholeheartedly support a proposal like this once we have the proper resources in place so that editors know how to write the alt text.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I could live with this I don't write good ALT text and find it very hard to do. It would be greatly appreciated if images had a default ALT text, which could be overridden in a particular article. There's also the issue of what happens when, as is permissible under MOS:ALT, no alt text is required. But I agree with Sandy; it would place an additional burden on an already overloaded process.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the appropriate alt-text in many of those cases is an alt-text of "See caption." If it's purely decorative (which I sure hope it's not), the alt text can be a word which describes the object such as . Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support - being inclusive is usually not convenient. NASA chose not to train black and female astronauts early in the 60s because they thought it interfered with their mission to land on the Moon by 1969. I agree, it is not easy to add alt-text right now, our guidelines and our tools should be improved (see here for one attempt at that). Alt tags are just one aspect of accessibility. There are other elements that we, including myself, fall short of (for example Manual_of_Style/Accessibility). It would be beneficial for the encyclopedia to embrace accessibility, starting with alt text. I think requiring alt text at FAC would be a net positive, and hopefully better tools along with the very proficient editors at FAC improving their alt-writing skills will reduce the pain of alt-text over time. However if we do not implement it, we cannot get past the pain.  Kees08  (Talk)   00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Moral support the best content on Wikipedia shouldn't be limited to people whose bodies we deem convenient. However, I don't think the right way to go about this is through rules telling people how to act rather than documenting how people already act. I think the better first step is to make it easier for editors to become aware of and create good alt-text which may even include reviewers adding alt-text themselves. Adding simple alt-text writing tips to new editor guides, help pages, and documentation would be more productive than this change. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Transclusion?
On the FAC page
 * something distinctly odd. FYI.


 * —— SerialNumber  54129  14:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What's odd? I think I must be missing something obvious! - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What am I missing? That all looks fine to me. &#8209; Iridescent 14:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the nominations viewer script, only the first three FAC transclusions show up for me. On PC in Chrome.  Kees08  (Talk)   14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Kees08 and the image>Only listing the first three noms. PC/ Firefox, should've said. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. The moral of this story is, always close your html. &#8209; Iridescent 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks . It always gets me, how a single tiny character can destroy a massive page... ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

ISBN Formatting
What's the consensus on ISBN formats for FAC? I've seen inconsistent use of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, and even inconsistent hyphenation, attract comments in source reviews, which I then parrot in mine. Is this something we should be looking for in source reviews, or can we let it slide? Factotem (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed we should stick to ISBN 13 following endless FAC comments, but it seems, from a discussion at the Citationbot talk page, that this isn't agreed on by everyone... FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be correct. Let the books retain the ISBN that they were printed with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking just as an editor, I'm with Sturm. I think if the edition you use has a 13-digit ISBN then use it, if has 10-digit only then use that and don't convert, and if it has both then use the 13-digit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like an extreme form of pedantry. Just use whatever is in the actual source. There's a point beyond which "consistency" becomes an obsession. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait... if I understand you correctly, obsession is a bad thing ;-)? Far more seriously, I almost always just let Citation Tool for Google Books bother with all that. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to convert to 13s and be consistent with that because that is what source reviewers are most likely (in my experience) to ask for. I don't care greatly about the matter, personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Curious to hear from the what the 'official' line is. Would a candidate be 'marked down' if a nom refuses to address this issue after it has been raised by a reviewer? Factotem (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See Ref: Stinking badges. Official line? We don't need no stinking official line. Ain't never no official line, not on anything, ever, period.. [well except for BLP probably, for legal reasons]. Ain't no official line any stinking thing. If you get three reviewers who say use 13 and are even willing to Oppose for bullshit like that,, then &^%&^%&^%&^ you, use 13. And if they Oppose over that bullshit, and no one else else is around to call their hand on it, guess what? Go hang your head in shame, your nom just Failed. In the final analysis, your one-and-only protection against the vagaries of arbitrary reviewers is the much-to-be-desired presence of sane ones. Pray for such. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am with Wehwalt. I never comment on isbns when reviewing but always convert to 13 when nominating because it is one less thing for reviewers to object to. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Our job isn't to weigh in on such issues, just to assess consensus. Personally, if I saw a reviewer and a nominator at an impasse over something like that, I'd encourage a third opinion or other consensus-building methods and hope it's worked out. I case could be made either way, so we rely on others to weigh in. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation tools and GBooks links
Thanks everyone for the clarification. All makes sense. Follow-up question: are there any on-wiki talk pages for the citation tools mentioned, specifically ones that relate to GBooks links? When reviewing articles that provide both GBooks links and ISBN numbers in the bibliography, I often find the two are mismatched; GBooks links to one edition, while the ISBN relates to a different edition (a problem compounded by the fact that GBooks often lists the details for one edition on the "about" page, but offers a preview for a different edition). This becomes a problem when the two editions have different paginations. If there's a tool that automates the generation of the bibliography, then maybe it needs tweaking. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't link to Gbooks if it's at all avoidable. If it's full text, it's usually out of copyright and it's often possible to link to an archive. If it's not full free text, to my mind it's basically then a spam link, not to mention that what you see depends on what country you are in and when you access. I've never provided a link to Gbooks in my FAs unless it's free full text Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the majority of cases you just do it because it is simpler than arguing about it, and arguing about it may not be the wisest course of action. In the final analysis, if a reviewer wants it, it is likely to happen. Same with alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not gonna lie, properly formatting references is the most excruciating part of article writing. I tend to simply accept whatever Citoid and the cite tools offer; I do check whether the ref points to the correct source however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that some editors find reference formatting so painful. Having recently returned to FAC source reviewing after a gap, I find that most nominators have a generally good grasp of this aspect, certainly far better than used to be the case when FACs were often littered with unformatted references. I believe we need to maintain our standards of presentation and uniformity, although I agree that sources reviewers can ease off on such nitpickery as ISBN formats without detriment to these standards.
 * On the matter of Gbook links, they are mainly useless beyond evidencing that the book exists, especially when no preview is available. They could easily be dispensed with, and should certainly never be asked for in a source review, although if nominators choose to include them I don't object. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Links to Gbooks or perhaps Amazon are very useful, assuming they are stable. Quick case in point, see Featured article candidates/Waterloo Bay massacre/archive1, my comments. See highlighted text, potential close paraphrase or even copyvio. I am on the other side of the freaking planet from any place that might even conceivably have a hardcopy of the book in question. Seriously, I ain't gonna pay for ship or plane to get there, and I ain't gonna pay Amazon big bucks for a single book that I would never consider reading outside of a single FAC review. Without gbooks/amazon preview, no one would have found that issue in that FAC... Oh! And in the same review, I was able to catch other errors that I consider to be fairly major, and track down more missing info from other books. Not gonna lie, gbooks is quite nearly indispensable. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where Gbooks links to the snippet you want, I'll put them in. It can save buying the book, which isn't a negligible consideration - the last FA and the one I'm working on now have cost me just north of £100 on sources. And it helps the Source reviewer, as Lingzhi indicates above. Where there's no snippet, I'll link to Worldcat. As Brian says, although he reaches a different conclusion, it proves the source exists and allows easy access to the book details. That said, I appreciate why other editors strongly dislike them and, as here, will drop them if there are objections. If editors go to the trouble of giving me a review, I'll go with their preferences on this. KJP1 (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One problem I've heard of with regards to Google Books is that often not all people have access to a given page. One editor might get a whole chapter and another one might only see a snippet. And there is a systemic bias issue - Google Books tends to host mainly NAmerican books out of copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Its trivial to look up a book title, and google books is neither stable nor consistent across territories, so why include? I feel strongly against the use of snippets; unless its for a very specific details, dates, measurements etc, should be avoided. Otherwise their used can be very suspect given the lack of visibility of a (literally) broader context. Trying to dress this up with a link is to be avoided; per Brian "they are mainly useless beyond evidencing that the book exists". Ceoil  (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying again
My question was not about whether or not GBook links are a good idea, but about the accuracy of citation tools used to generate bibliography sections. The problem came up in the Marchioness disaster FAC with https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59XvXKbyvZIC. Plugging that URL into http://reftag.appspot.com/ gives: but the GBooks preview is actually: I've notified the app owner, but they do not appear to be very active on WP these days. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 920-page e-book edition published in 2011 by Elsevier with ISBN 978-0-08-056009-0
 * 902-page print edition published in 2008 by Butterworth-Heinemann with ISBN 978-0-7506-8987-8.
 * And thanks again for picking up the inconsistency: I had assumed that there was a publishers' master file from which the information was taken, ensuring the same information from all outlets, but I guess I'll have to double-check them all in future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I'm pretty sure this is a GBooks issue. The GBooks listing for a given book (complete with bibliographic details) relates to one edition, but the preview is of a different edition. It looks to me that the app pulls the data from the listing page, as I'm sure most editors do, and not from the information actually shown in the preview. Factotem (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WT:ERRORS
Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Also see WT:ERRORS. (Bottom line: I won't be writing the blurbs whenever someone else beats me to it, and I'm unwatching WP:ERRORS). - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, no objections to doing blurb reviews for the remaining articles promoted in January ... I think it's worth making the invitations, in part because it's hard to remember January 21 as a start date for blurb reviews ... better to make it January 1, retroactively. So: take your time, guys, these haven't been scheduled at TFA yet, and please feel free to comment or edit:


 * WT:Featured article candidates/Siege of Berwick (1333)/archive1
 * WT:Featured article candidates/Apollo 11/archive1, J
 * WT:Featured article candidates/William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros/archive1, J
 * WT:Featured article candidates/Red-bellied black snake/archive1
 * WT:Featured article candidates/Rwandan Civil War/archive1

Pinging the noms: Gog the Mild, Hawkeye7, Kees08, Serial Number 54129, Casliber and Amakuru. I can ping the supporters, but that's probably not necessary.

Also promoted in January: Teresa Sampsonia, Æthelberht, King of Wessex and Irritator. These three will run at TFA in late April; see Today's featured article/April 2019. Please feel free to edit the blurbs or add comments to their talk pages. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh ... and keep an eye out for Pyramid of Unas, also promoted in January ... I'm told it will run in early May. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

External link checking tool
The external link checker, which appears in the toolbox on each FAC nomination, is currently returning me a 404 messsage saying that the page doesn't exist. Are others getting the same message? Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, all the links in the toolbox are returning 404 messages so there appears to be some systemic fault. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks Brian -- I tried it soon after you posted this, and again just now, and still appears to be down. I note that a message has been left on Dispenser's talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The tool seems to be functioning again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Bot report
Featured article candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive2 has not been transcluded on the nomination page. I should automate this. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, tks Hawkeye. I don't mind manually transcluding because it gives us a chance to vet them beforehand but if Andy and Sarastro like the idea of automating then it's fine by me... The mere fact that FACbot alerts us is a big help, and is appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR access
I've been out of the loop for a while, and I seem to have lost my JSTOR access – previews are all I'm getting. I wonder if this is general, or whether I've missed something somewhere. Can anyone enlighten? Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It may have expired . If you go to WP:LIBRARY, you'll be able to request a renewal of your account. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

American former astronaut
There's a disturbing trend in just the last few years: the rise of machine-written, semi-literate journalism, and it's just now starting to cause massive headaches. There's absolutely no shame (or shouldn't be, anyway) in repeating language in Wikipedia articles that you see or hear elsewhere, and it's not on you guys to fix this problem ... the blame is firmly on the idiots who are trying to save a few bucks with a "no humans in the loop" approach to writing. I'm trying to learn what I can about the problem.

"American former astronaut" is in the class of problematic phrases that have just started to appear. Most of you probably learned in school that in the phrase "some American astronauts", "some" is an adjective, but over the last 20 years linguists have reached a consensus that that's either wrong or it's not the whole story ... "some" doesn't obey the usual rules for adjectives at all, so it's now considered to be a new part of speech called a determiner. Determiners almost never follow adjectives, which is why all of these sound horribly wrong: "the American four astronauts were selected", "American some astronauts landed on the moon", "one of the American later astronauts", etc. "Former" isn't a black-and-white case ... it might not be a determiner, but it's so similar to other words that are determiners that "American former astronaut" sounds as wrong as "American four astronauts" to many listeners. Could we ban this phrase in Featured Articles, please? - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Inserted: Sorry, "first" was my first example. I should have been more careful ... that's a special case, it's sort of a determiner and sort of not. Either way, before today, I had never heard anyone speak up in favor of "American first astronaut". - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I see no issue at all with "American former astronaut"; the alternative, "former American astronaut", is ambiguous as it's not clear whether the subject has retired as an astronaut or has renounced American citizenship. To take the "first astronaut" example, Yuri Gagarin was both the Russian first astronaut and the first Russian astronaut, but Alan Shepherd was the first American astronaut but not the American first astronaut. We'd say Armstrong was "the American first astronaut to land on the moon", not "the first American astronaut to land on the moon", because the latter implies a non-American got there first. &#8209; Iridescent 16:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if you don't like the idiots who are trying to save a few bucks with a "no humans in the loop" approach to writing, you'll probably want to avert your gaze from the WMF's vision of our Wikidata-powered future. &#8209; Iridescent 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Love that. We're all going to be machines in a few years, right?  So this is just future-proofing, removing "nuance" etc, it's the best thing since sliced bread!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man, in defence of the WMF (not a phrase I generally employ), I believe the intention is that this be used to generate pseudoarticles in obscure languages where there isn't enough of an editor base to manually write any but the most core topics, to prevent articles translated from the big wikis from becoming a sea of redlinks, on "something is better than nothing and at least this will tell you the absolute basics" grounds. They've been piloting a live version of it on Haitian Wikipedia—go over there and type in a topic on which they don't have an article and you'll see something like this (to stick with the astronaut theme). As (unsurprisingly) I don't speak Haitian, I have no idea if this is going down badly or well. &#8209; Iridescent 20:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does that sound right to everyone else, "the American first astronaut to land on the moon"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd say "an American who was the first astronaut to land on the moon", but if obliged to use either "the American first astronaut to land on the moon" or "the first American astronaut to land on the moon" I'd unequivocally use the former, as the latter implies that the Russians were there waiting for him as he disembarked. Margaret Thatcher was the first female prime minister, not the female first prime minister. &#8209; Iridescent 19:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a set order for adjectives in English which, apparently, we intuitively follow even if we don't know about it (I didn't know until I read this). It's so intuitive to me that "American first..." is just plain wrong, regardless of how technically correct it might be in some contexts; so wrong, in fact, that I would recast the statement to avoid those contexts rather than get the adjective order wrong. Factotem (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Rephrase to avoid the awkwardness (which does itself avoid the ambiguity, but introduces clunk).  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Rephrase" is my vote too ... "first American astronaut to land ..." is also wrong, for the reason you give, Iri. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The IOC rapped me over the knuckles for describing someone as a "former Olympian". There is no such thing as a "former" Olympian. Off to code the Rambling Man Bot in Lua.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could also get over our obsession with identifying the nationality of every person in the first sentence. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for March
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have just shy of ten years of data now, and when I noticed there is only a single oppose in the tables above, I thought it might be interesting to look at oppose frequency. Not counting image and source reviews, the most frequent opposer by far over the last ten years is Nikkimaria, who has opposed 172 times in 397 reviews -- that's 43% of her content reviews. I think this is because Nikki has long been one of the reviewers who are willing to quickly point out that a new FAC is really not ready and should be withdrawn; Nick-D and Brianboulton, among others, have also often quickly opposed substandard nominations.

Here are the top ten in total opposes (content, not image/source reviews) in the last ten years:

In terms of percentages, and assuming at least fifty reviews, the only other reviewers who have opposed at least 25% of the time are Squeamish Ossifrage 37/97 - 38%, and Karanacs 27/94 - 29%. Note that none of these numbers include struck opposes.

My own numbers are 30/280 (11%), in case you're curious; I can post the numbers for anyone else who wants to know, though I should repeat that this is only from May 2009 onwards, which is probably less than half the total FAC reviewing data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends on language use to. Some people use a polite "comment" when it is pretty clear that some material needs fixing and the article shouldn't be promoted without same. SOme would use an "oppose" from the get-go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cas. I'd rarely type  unless the FAC was a clear non-starter, but I'd regularly write a long list of problems that needed addressing. To my mind, "oppose" can be off-putting, especially to newcomers to the process, whereas "here's a list of problems, it's up to you whether you fix them or withdraw this nomination" has the same effect but allows the nominator to withdraw with dignity and not end up feeling as if they've been flamed off. &#8209; Iridescent 13:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice
Anyone who pings me to review FACs can expect to be shouted at, after the abuse, the threats, the belittling I received here. Tony (talk)  14:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...On this talk page, specifically? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone pinged him to comment on the National Front (UK) FAC, as he'd commented on the first one; I presume that's the connection. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia novice subject-matter experts as reviewers?
Hi all,

I saw a thread here recently about a shortage of reviewers. I do some work through various programs/events training or otherwise encouraging subject-matter experts to learn to contribute to Wikipedia. Sometimes it's through a weeks-long process, sometimes through edit-a-thons, and sometimes just an informal conversation, etc. As we all know, for better or worse, and for a range of reasons, writing articles on Wikipedia just isn't a good fit for some people. An open question is then in what ways they could contribute to Wikipedia apart from writing? Reviewing articles is a common suggestion, and there have been a number of projects/experiments involving just that, with mixed results. Sometimes they've been quite helpful, leading to article improvements, sometimes it's well-meaning but nobody actually does anything with the review, and sometimes the reviews miss the mark, maybe because of a misunderstanding of fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's assume that for the sake of my question below, that this last scenario won't be an issue, and that people will have a reasonable sense of the fundamentals (NPOV, RS, V, NOR, etc.).

Here's my question: Is there a place at FAC for people who aren't experienced editors but have subject-matter expertise and want to help?

Obviously they won't be able to help with comments about things like MOS, but they may have a good sense of the body of literature, sources available, weight, prose quality in general, etc. At this point I'm just asking to see if it's a possibility worth looking into more. Of course, if the FAC community doesn't think it would be useful, I wouldn't want to pursue it. Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Content-only reviewers would be extremely welcome; we have a high proportion of prose/MOS-only ones as things are, & balance on this would be great. At least here they can expect to have a review responded to, which of course you can by no means count on if you drop one on the average talk page. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnbod; this is a good place for them, though I think it's likely to be hard to find SMEs that are a fit for most FACs. It might also be worth keeping a list of SMEs and what their expertise is, since knowing that there's an SME available might help someone decide to work on a given article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I fear POV. Some "experts" are very very POV. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What about a trial run at peer review?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PR is a good idea. POV is of course relevant for some topics but not others. My point would just be to prepare for that possibiloity by considering ways to handle it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I don't know how it would be a "trial" - we can't prevent anyone posting on either pages. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not trying to restrict anyone, but peer review is a good place to start. People get touchy about their FAC nominations and expect certain things from reviewers and I'm fearing if we drop the experts in the deep end (FAC), things could go wrong. We've been discussing and hoping for experts to come along for years, so I'd like things to go right.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Will possible POV really be a big problem? Reviewers only make suggestions, an author does not have to implement it. I think the benefits of having experts commenting far outweigh this possible problem. If we just keep the potential POV problem in mind and give it a try? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think to get to what Ling is talking about, it might be good to clarify to the expects some of Wikipedia’s core policies from the get-go, both so that they can provide more actionable feedback and also so they understand why the articles might be structured the way they are. For example, there’s a lot of scientists or researchers who don’t really understand that we’re mostly a tertiary source, and that original research is not in our wheelhouse (where it’s a key component of their professions.) Likewise even with WP:WEIGHT issues there’s probably still going to be more time spent to alternate (and frankly wrong) or outdated viewpoints because we’re a summation of a body of knowledge and not (or shouldn’t be) trying to be on the cutting edge of scholarship. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this would be most welcome. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One potential area in which novice subject expert editors' input might be particularly useful is that of source reviewing. From their subject knowledge they should be able to assess whether the sources used in an article are properly representative of the body of material available on the subject, including the most recent scholarship. It is hard for source reviewers such as myself to do this, hence the frequent use of qualified wording such as "the sources appear to meet the FA criteria". I do wonder, though, how such editors are to be identified and recruited – indeed, what is the evidence that they exist to any significant extent? Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Branching off a bit, assume the reviewer gets inspired and sends a four page review that covers many aspects of the article. Does it get buried on the FAC page, placed on article talk with a " no archive" notice, or placed on its own subpage, like /talk/attribution? I like the latter, edit protected, and subsequent discussion on either article talk or subpage talk. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Second question: Let's assume the reviewer really is an acknowledged expert in the field, but doesn't want all the attention of posting their name on the review, so wants to be an anonymous reviewer. Can FAC coords recv forwarded emails and post a statement vouching for the authority of the reviewer? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments so far. I suppose I should add a bit more context here. From a volunteer perspective, through Wikimedia NYC we are often looking for innovative ways to engage members of the public. Our primary way is through edit-a-thons, but while those are good for a lot of things, they're generally poor venues for any sort of sustained, high-quality engagement with an article, and, as I wrote at the top, editing directly just isn't a good fit for everyone. So one dimension of this is possible experimentation at in-person events. Beyond WMNYC, this comes up at various conferences/events I attend. Along these lines, I should also ping . We've presented a couple times now on "alternative modes of expert engagement" (or whatever we want to call it) over the past few years.
 * From a Wiki Education perspective (I made this inquiry initially as a volunteer, but should disclose that I'm also an employee of Wiki Education [as ]), we've started branching out from working with instructors and students in classroom projects to working with academics and other professionals directly. This is framed in the context of contributing to public knowledge in their field, with careful consideration of things like COI and POV. There's a lot of enthusiasm for this, but the typical model (an 8-12 week course with video meetings, chat, and on-wiki interactions) is too cumbersome or otherwise a bad fit for some people, so I'm looking for other ways we can help people get involved. Mitigating things like COI/POV is what we can do reasonably well. This is all just exploratory at this point, with no plans for a test run, nevermind regular activity, but I could see this taking the form of a day-long pre-conference sort of thing, a week-long online session, or something a little longer. Who knows. :) I mainly wanted to establish that it wouldn't be a bad idea from the perspective of FAC regulars. This is about adding reviewers, not adding to the workload of existing reviewers, after all. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, the simple presence of POV or UNDUE might be OK (in the review, not the article) if it's openly acknowledged. It's OK for an expert to present their own view, assuming they know and admit it's their view, and are aware of its relationship to academic consensus. Even a POV review might provide insights or resources hitherto unnoticed. The problem is if the reviewer does not see or admit the review is POV or UNDUE. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

withdraw procedure
I would prefer to withdraw my FAC Setirostris eleryi, for which a review has started, but do not see a procedure to do that. Not something I need to know, so if someone could assist or make it happen I would appreciate the help. Cheers, cygnis insignis 11:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. cygnis insignis 12:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, wot's "B/C editing"? ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I'm biting my tongue. I meant improving several article to a quality rating of C to B, towards good article, but not bothering with GA or FA discussions. cygnis insignis 12:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a pity about the FA, but working on B and C class articles is good work as well of course. And gold star or not, the Setirostris article is in a better place for your involvement so thank you. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for April
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for April. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, but are there ever any "support[s] converting to oppose"? —— SerialNumber  54129  17:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just show them as opposes. I think I've seen cases where people change their minds multiple times, and I didn't think that was worth tracking; nor is it very easy to be sure you have the history right.  The three I decided to track are struck supports, struck opposes, and opposes that are converted to supports.  It's a value judgement but I thought those were the most interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Blurb reviews and time off
I'll be taking a couple of weeks off, several times over the next several months, while I work on linguistics projects. (That's all I want to say about it right now ... I just wanted you to know I'm not goofing off.) Occasionally, I won't be posting a TFA blurb until a couple of weeks after a FAC is promoted. (But I'll do some blurbs early, so there won't usually be much of a wait.) I hope people will keep the FAC nom page watchlisted after promotion, so you'll be able to see when the blurb shows up, and leave comments. If you have experience with what's expected in Main Page blurbs, feel free to write your own ... but I'm happy to write them if you don't mind waiting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Best of luck on your shadowy project :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks David. Don't mean to be mysterious ... I just want to wander in and out of some linguistics projects that look interesting, and I can't tell yet what I'll end up doing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding to edits at a couple of blurb reviews: if I do a blurb before something gets promoted, that means I made a wild guess that it might get promoted before I get back from my break, and I didn't want people to have to wait too long. If early blurb reviews ever interfere in any way with the FAC, please let me know. Also: except for the blurbs where we can't find an acceptable free image (maybe 1 in 15?), blurb length is generally 925 to 1025 characters. As you can imagine, FAC people and Main Page people don't agree on everything all the time, and blurb length is one of the areas where I'd prefer that we not jerk them around too much, to avoid unnecessary fights. Having said that: if we get enough discussion at a blurb review to establish consensus on anything, including a different blurb length, we can do it, and deal with the consequences later. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Mentor
As the instructions strongly suggests a mentor for first time nominators (which I am), I'm posting here to see if anyone would be willing to mentor me as I put up The Hate U Give for consideration. I have a handful of GAs and one FL to my credit so hopefully I would be a good mentee. Thanks for any consideration and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks promising, and if you can live with me being quite busy, I volunteer. First thing I noticed is image placement. "She" should look "in", so be right (not left), and not cross a section header. Images should have ALT texts and no fixed image size. - I am not familiar with the topic, so someone else might be a better mentor. We also could "mentor" together: run a Peer review before FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your offer. I have gone ahead and made the suggested changes to the image. All things being relatively equal, I would love to move forward with the candidacy at this point. However, I am open to a peer review and in fact had put an earlier version of the article up for one and got no response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I glanced at it and see a couple of issues. Writing theme sections are always difficult and its themes section looks like it overlaps w/ the reception section, but I'd have to give it closer read. It's an interesting story, and I'll try work through it and post comments on the talk page. The new image placement interferes with the infobox (too close), on my computer, fwiw. But that's the type of thing that can happen in a FAC. Reviewers don't always agree, so it's up to you to decide. If I've not posted on the talk page in a few days, ping me. P.s - if you haven't done so yet, Manual of Style/Novels is a good starting point. Victoria (tk) 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The placement of the image looks fine to me, - perhaps it was changed again. Sorry for no peer review response, - I have planned to go to Adele Spitzeder, but had no time yet. How about you reviewing there, and reading what people say, and seeing if you can apply it to your article. You could also check other book FAs. I'm really busy these days, so can't look closer until let's says second hald of next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the suggestions. I have spent a fair amount of time basing the article off of other book FAs, particularly the Hunger Games as another YA book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Need mentoring
..For the impending second FAC of the "All About That Bass" article. I have started a peer review page so that improvements can be made without worrying about premature archival. But I need someone who has experience with writing featured song articles to help me simplify some parts. Which was a major criticism from the first FA attempt. Thanks.--NØ 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for May
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mike. Ceoil  (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject notifications
So, while looking at some FACs I've submitted I got a thought.

Would it be proper to post notifications of a FAC on the talk page of the pertinent WikiProjects or is that improper canvassing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine as long as the notification is neutrally-worded. FAR instigators are encouraged to use Template:FARMessage on WikiProject talk pages. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've done so, using a notification text inspired by Template:FARMessage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-submitting of FA
Hi all,

I recently nominated my first FA at WP:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive1, which was archived 22 May 2019. I understand that the proceedure is to wait two weeks from this before nominating any articles.

I do plan to renominate the article, as I have done some work on the article to meet WP:MOSFLAG (Namely change instances of each nationality to flagathlete over flagicon as per the candidate talk. Two weeks is a little vague regarding times. When would be the ideal time to re-submit? Two weeks from closure would presumably be 5th June, however the last actual comment on the nomination was 11 days ago.

Having never done an FAC before, I'm a little worried about resubmitting to early, or otherwise failing etiquette. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Two weeks from closure is the official requirement. Unofficially, the answer is: however long it takes for you to be assured that the issues that led to the closure have been resolved, and that the article meets the FA criteria. (And, in this particular case, that renominating won't cause edit-warring to kick off again). Nikkimaria (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I can't see how it doesn't meet the requirements (or at least the ones raised), and the issues over flagicon are fixed, regardless of anyones thoughts on whether or not they should exist. There has been no edit warring since the closure, so that is all I really have to go on (IE, no one has changed back to flagicon). Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think nominators can be held accountable for edit warring "kicking off" when the nominators are working to be MOS (and FA) compliant. The edit warring was disruption caused by those editing against MOS.  So in no way would this nomination be premature in being renominated.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately as stability is part of the criteria, edit-warring - no matter who is right in the matter - would prevent promotion while it is ongoing. As long as that's done with the nomination can proceed at any time. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well if the edit warring only happens at the time of the FAC, then it's a kind of Catch 22 isn't it?  So once again, there's no reason to prevent renomination right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * On its face, I tend to agree with TRM, its in the discretionary range. Ceoil  (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is suitible, I'll renominate today to avoid wasting too much time. However, if it's deemed wrong I can wait an extra two days for the nomination. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Today is fine. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:


 * Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
 * From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
 * Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From an FA/GA/PR point of view, this is a complementary system to provide review of existing content by external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications. It also acts as a route for high-quality new articles from people who would not have otherwise contributed to a wikimedia project.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 11:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Supported, and I might get involved. Let us know what you need. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Will support later (on mobile atm), but my featured articles would be a good addition. :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any integration or even cooperation with FAC, for the same reasons raised at great length last time this came up. While CC BY-SA means you're free to reuse articles however you see fit, if any kind of formal integration of WikiJournals and FA does go ahead I request that all FAs for which I've been the nominator be delisted; I do not wish to be associated with the WikiJournals project in any way as I consider its values—particularly "the opinions of different editors are of different value" which is hardwired into its "panel of experts" approach—fundamentally and irredeemably incompatible with those of Wikipedia. (Incidentally, I assume it's accidentally slipped your mind that the citable, doi-linked publications you mention were unanimously rejected as being considered reliable sources even by Wikipedia's relatively low standards.) I'm neutral as to whether this continues to be hosted at Wikiversity or as a separate project, as I don't feel it's a project the WMF should be hosting at all; the whole concept of "private pages" and separate logons is completely against our values. &#8209; Iridescent 14:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Iridescent's points. I don't think this project works well within the "anyone can edit" culture of Wikimedia projects and have consequently filed an oppose in the Meta discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, buried in the subpages they're talking about spending vast sums of the WMF's money on this proposal "because the funding is around", including hiring their own staff and having their own travel budget (the figure of $1,000,000 is mentioned, apparently not as a joke); this isn't just some handful of hobbyists running a pet project in a quiet corner but a genuine coordinated attack on Wikipedia's and the WMF's core values. &#8209; Iridescent 19:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be worth engaging with the suggestion directly so Lane is aware it's being discussed. Is Lane involved in the user group? Richard Nevell (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Other than that WikiJournals can consume content generated on Wikipedia (as anyone is free to do provided they follow the licensing requirements), can someone explain to me what relationship is proposed between WikiJournals and our content assessment processes? I would oppose any system where an external peer review process would attempt to compel revisions on Wikipedia based on authority of the reviewers rather than a consensus-based process. I would also oppose any system where we the FAC community are compelled to accept content as FA/GA/etc solely because it's been peer-reviewed for a WikiJournal. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming their proposed model hasn't changed, it was spelled out last year in response to my challenging it last time round: After peer reviewer comments are addressed, the journal article is integrated into Wikipedia so that it is not a particularly forked version. It is treated as an approved version in the same way that there is an approved version of Featured articles. The Wikipedia page continues to evolve after the journal-organised peer review just as any GAs and FAs do. The public facing version in Wikipedia should 100% be the most recent and up to date version. The stable version of record can be used for citation. Their own mission statement is [WikiJournal's] function is to put articles through academic peer review for dual-publication as a stable, citable version in the journal, and as living documents in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, and I see no way to read that other than "WikiJournal's external peer review process is used to amend the article, and the result is used to overwrite the existing Wikipedia article with their version somehow flagged as the 'approved' version in the event of subsequent edits". &#8209; Iridescent 22:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The voting so far supports Wikijournal (hopefully without the camel case). Can't we assume that Wikijournalists (?) will start off by overreaching, at least the ones who aren't familiar with GAN, FAC, and other forms of article review on Wikipedia? That's why I'm not paying much attention yet ... I'm pretty sure they won't get everything they might want. But I'd be interested to know what they'd be willing to settle for, and whether it's something that might work for some Wikipedians. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Meta discussion is confusing, but WikiJournal (with the camel case) is already up and running and has been for some time; what's being voted on isn't whether they be allowed to continue, but how they continue. They're unhappy with the "anyone can edit" and "anyone can see the history" nature of the existing Wiki model; what's being voted on is whether they be allowed to split off to their own site to allow them in future to conduct their peer reviews and discussions in secret and subsequently present the rewrites as a fait accompli. As they've explained over at the Meta proposal, their model for reconciling "approved version" and "anyone can edit" is that anyone may edit pages, even published ones, but substantial edits to the main text of such articles would be reverted (direct quote). &#8209; Iridescent 07:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it is discouraged to make substantial edits to the finished products, the published articles (these can be made if approved by the author but would require an additional round of peer review). But this is well in accordance with Wikimedia principles: Same is the case in Wikinews and Wikisource. And I don't see any restrictions in viewing the history either. It is an Academic journal, but is as open as such a journal can get. It does not only allow everybody to edit, but everybody to publish and participate in Academia. As they say, taking Wikipedia articles to the journal would remain a minor route that only few editors will take (it thus has no direct relevance for FAC). But it can be a chance to close the gap between Academia and Wikipedia. Remains to be seen if the journal will be well-received by Academia though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In practice, for the two articles I've published in the WikiJournal of Science, the approach outlined has not been harmful. Perhaps this was because these articles were almost entirely my own work (not to discount the value contributed by the reviewers, of course).  There was a point after the journal version was published when the radiocarbon dating article was more or less identical to the journal version because I integrated the peer review changes.  I think I have so far neglected to do that with the ice drilling article, though I wouldn't object if someone else did it.  This integration is not just harmless, it's beneficial: if peer reviews of journal versions result in improvements I think the authors should feel themselves obliged to transfer those improvements to the Wikipedia articles.  If someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia were to write a journal article and then were to be foolish enough to overwrite the Wikipedia article with it with no discussion, I imagine they'd be summarily reverted at any article with active editors, and asked to discuss the improvements on the talk page.  I don't think this has happened yet and I think it's unlikely to; anyone that unaware of Wikipedia norms is unlikely to have much interest in contributing to the journal in the first place, and would have even less interest in editing Wikipedia.  None of this is to say that the wording quoted could not be improved, but I don't think the reading Iridescent gives is intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at an article in the Wikijournal of the Humanities yesterday and it showed two peer reviewers. However, it did not give any indication of what qualifications they had to act as peers - could be T. C. Mits, for all I know. That confused me, as did the entire proposal until just now when I read Iridescent's explanation above. - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination trouble
I can't get my nomination in properly. Could someone help? Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no nomination page to transclude. Follow the instructions in the Nomination procedure section at Featured article candidates. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks DK., if you are considering nominating Flight 175 for FAC, pls take note of my comments on the article talk page from last time, i.e. ensure that at the very least, all paragraphs end in citations to reliable sources -- at the moment at least four do not, and there's little point in nominating here until that's dealt with; I'd also strongly recommend taking this article to Peer Review first in any case -- I for one would try and look it over there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Closing a nomination?
Hi, can someone please close this nomination as I haven't figured out how to do so? Thanks. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do so shortly. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeking mentor
Hi FAC,

Long-time listener, first-time caller here. There are a couple articles I'd like to explore bringing to FAC and wonder if someone would be interested/available to help as mentor.

The first is Rhode Island banking crisis, when embezzlement triggered the collapse of a private state insurer and a third of the state's population lost access to their bank accounts (for days, weeks, months, or in some cases more than a year). Protests, questions about organized crime and corruption, long manhunt, etc. (I'm trying to sell it a little because on the surface it sounds like a dry topic, I know). It's a GA now. I sent it to PR but it was archived without a review.

The second is Rossa Matilda Richter, who became the first human cannonball at the age of 14. It's sat in the GAN queue since last August, and is currently under review, but I feel like it's a strong contender for FAC. Working on this article was the first time I felt like I should take something to FAC as I realized, in the process of doing an exhaustive search for sources, that our article seems to be the best overall source about her now.

I don't know enough about the FAC mentoring processes to know how much the topic itself matters, but figured I'd detail what my plans are just in case. Anyone interested? :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help out with one, your call which. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks. I suppose we should start with Rhode Island banking crisis, since the Richter article still has GAN pending. Let me know how you'd like to proceed? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WT:TFA
Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Marc Bloch

 * Spam alert*: Now up at peer review, if anyone's interested. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for June
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

accessiblity requirement proposal
I have added a proposal on WP:VPR to add accessibility as a requirement for attaining FA and GA status. Please take a look and give your input. Thank you.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

FACs needing more input
Noting here that there are currently three FACes in the "FACs needing feedback" box, Featured article candidates/1969 Curaçao uprising/archive1 which began on the 25th of April, my own Featured article candidates/Payún Matrú/archive1 which began on the 13th of May and Featured article candidates/Sega/archive1 which began on the 24th of May. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing these out, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I'll do my part and take a look at the first two today while I have time.  Hopefully someone will be willing to return the favor for Sega, which is my FAC.   Red Phoenix  <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  14:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll look at the Sega article and perhaps also at Curaçao. I'll admit, I was a bit uneasy with posting this request on my own FAC as it looks pushy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, I felt the same way when I tried to do that at WT:VG, but alas, did not generate any interest anyway.  Red Phoenix  <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And that's two of three promoted. Red Phoenix <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  13:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Source review for Kal Ho Naa Ho
A source review for the article would be very helpful. The link for the article's FAC is right here. Thank you. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Mullum Malarum/archive4
Is this a good way to invite more editors to post comments at the FAC page? Additionally, am I allowed to strike out another user's comments if they have been addressed but the user is not there to strike them out himself? -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  06:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer your second question, no. Leave them for the person to come back or, failing that, for the co-ords to judge whether you have done what the review asked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it Gav -- yes, as long as you've made clear that you've acknowledged and/or actioned the comments, there's no need for them to be struck. Generally I'd be posting at relevant project pages or individual editors' talk pages for further comments, but no great harm in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

alt text size

 * I exported all FAs a week ago and am fooling around with them. Dunno if we care about alt text size, but here are the largest few examples (sorted by size in characters=bytes). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like, in these cases, large alt text is attributed either to describing maps or writing alt text as if it was longdesc (which is how I used to erroneously do it). I will try to poke through the table and at least work on the obvious issues. When I want a second opinion I usually post on WP:ALT, like I did at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Query re: one-at-a-time rule
G'day all, I have a query about the one-at-a-time rule. I now have about twenty articles ready for FAC and they generally take about six weeks to move through the system. I also review virtually every Milhist article that comes to FAC, and mostly work in an area where collaboration is not easy to line up. I am wondering if there has ever been an arrangement in the past where a single editor has been able to nominate two articles at a time? What would be the implications of loosening up the one-at-a-time rule, say to a maximum of two articles at a time, whether they are single nom or collaborations? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The concern I see with allowing specific editors to have an exemption is that it establishes one kind of editor as superior to the other and Wikipedia normally does not do this. Regarding letting everybody have more than one FAC running is that it might overload the system with nominations, but on the other hand, it might increase the output of the FAC system. I am not sure which aspect would end up being the most important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not asking for a specific exemption, I am after an expansion of the rules to allow single editors to have two noms in train at once, which is currently allowed as long as one is a co-nom. I think the current arrangements make it harder for noms working in narrow subject areas where co-noms can be hard to find. In 45 FAs, I've only been able to find a co-nom two or three times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be concerned that this brings in an element of reviewer fatigue to the process. There are currently 39 FACs running, many of which are desperately in need of reviews. Allowing productive editors to double up on nominations could add a further five or ten to that process making the process unwieldy. If we go down that route, I suspect many of the relatively new FAC nominators and those working in niche or 'unfashionable' areas are just going to be more overlooked than they are at the moment. (Personally I would like the rule, as I am often in the situation of wanting to have a couple running simultaneously, but I just don't think it's fair for the majority of nominations running at that time.) - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable concern, and as a fellow prolific FA contributor, I appreciate your perspective. I still think the current arrangements preference those that work in areas that allow greater scope for collaboration due to having more willing workers that can potentially work together on articles. Diversity is important on WP, and editors that work in less mainstream areas can be sidelined to some extent by the current arrangements. I also wonder about the TFA throughput, which I admit I have no visibility of, and perhaps have a view. If we need 365 or so FAs every year, are we keeping up with that? If not, what is our plan? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 10:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify who editors that work in less mainstream areas refers to? ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it obviously isn't just me, working on Yugoslav topics, no doubt there are many others I'm not aware of working in niche areas who are affected by the current policy. Perhaps you yourself are working on developing articles in an under-represented niche area towards FA and would benefit from a change in policy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mine regularly take 6 weeks to 2 months minimum. I would willingly allow twice as bloody long if it allowed prolific contributors more opportunities. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "they generally take about six weeks to move through the system" As an editor whose first 12 FA nominations have, thanks to the generosity of other editors, just gone through in under 35 weeks (less than 3 weeks apiece) that seems an inordinately lengthy average. I have no real suggestions, although I find myself in agreement with SchroCat. However, I for one, as a reviewer who tries to look at 9 or 10 FACs a month, would be happy to preferentially review your nominations. (I am sure that you can think of a couple of my reviews of your noms which suggest that you would by no means get a 'wave through'.) If you were to ping me each time you nominate a FAC I would see what I could do to get that six weeks down. It is possible that there are other frequent reviewers who may be similarly inclined. I would also be happy to preferentially look at the nominations of other frequent reviewers - not, I hope that it goes without saying, just those who commit their time to pointing out the infelicities in my nominations. I realise that this doesn't really address your issue, but it may go some way towards ameliorating his particular problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * for a long time now the supply of new FAs has fallen short of the needs of a daily TFA, which is why we occasionally have reruns. Anything that speeds up the production of new FAs will help postpone the day when TFAs runs for longer than a single day <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  12:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC), pinging again due to error in spelling <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  12:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't personally have any issues with altering this rule if that's the wish of the community. It was made to keep the queue more sane—not for us coordinators but for reviewers. A longer queue isn't necessarily any more difficult for me to manage as a coordinator. However, something that may come hand-in-hand with this is more aggressive archiving of nominations that receive little feedback or have little support for promotion. We've tended to wait a month or even longer before archiving such nominations but I think we'd want to start pushing that up depending on what effect this change has on the queue. If the queue increases in size by a substantial amount, we'll have to manage it differently because our reviewers are definitely not increasing in number. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think the main problem with this is lack of reviewers in general, otherwise I would have nothing against multiple noms. We are just not quite there, reviewer wise. Articles about obscure subjects have to wait months to get reviews, while military history articles usually just sail through (that seems to be the most successful project in Wikipedia in this regard, as it has a constant high number of writers and reviewers), so it is already unbalanced in their favour. Anyhow, there is the option to ask the delegates for a second nom, so that should be a good compromise that is already in place? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * People have asked to run a second nomination from time to time if the first has ample support and appears to be heading for promotion, but is at discretion of coordinators IIRC...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think technically it's at the coord's discretion but I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've not agreed to a good faith request for a second nom before the first is complete, and generally only then because I like to give every nom at least two or three weeks to run and the request has come earlier. Quite a few people make these requests, no harm in more doing so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, has anyone considered whether to do a "trial run" where for a limited period people can nominate two rather than just one FAC, to see what kind of benefits or downsides would crop up? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, I suggest we allow two solo nominations for a six month period and see whether any of the problems foreseen above actually materialise, and whether our throughput improves. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really in favour of 'trial runs' at FAC. As I recall, adding FAR to the bottom of the FAC page was a trial too and that's still going though I don't think anyone's evaluated whether it's really helped much. We'd have to check the archives to be sure but I expect the decision for one nom at a time was decided by an RFC, and if we want to change that I think it's another RFC. If we want to experiment a bit then I'd be more in favour of the coords being a little more liberal about leave to start a new FAC after the first is seen to be progressing well (granted, still a discretionary thing), thus ensuring we stagger multiple noms. With the best will in the world, I'm not convinced that people doubling their simultaneous noms are going to suddenly double their reviewing effort as well to keep things moving at a good pace and also keep up our reviewing standards. Reviewer burnout is always a greater risk at FAC than nominator burnout, in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That hits the nail on the head. The only way this would work—at least, the best way of ensuring that it would work—would be to tie it in with reviewing: only editors who have reviewed X number of candidates get to upload another nom, or something. And that's review here not anywhere else. But even then, I still think it would be manipulable: as I've said before, how to ensure a review that isn't just the fac equivalent of "support per nom". ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good trade off. If we allow more nominations, we also need more reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely that can only be assessed on an individual basis? For example, I average five to seven FAC reviews a month and my FACs take, on average, six weeks to go through the process, what would be an acceptable number of reviews per month to enable a second nomination? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing 50% of nominations (incl. older noms) on the board would probably cover it. ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we'd need a quality standard for for-a-second-FAC reviews, not a simple numerical standard. From time to time people on this page complain about "support on prose" and about people ignoring valid concerns raised by an "oppose" argument. This will perhaps go too much into weeds, but one thing I am thinking about is that a for-a-second-FAC a) should not simply ignore valid points raised by others and b) at least when it's prefixed with a "support" it needs to address all the criteria. That in turn raises the question of how to measure and record people's for-a-second-FAC arguments. While I like this concept, I am a little unsure of the practical implementation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think any defined standard would work, because it's possible to do a thorough review and only write "Support -- could find nothing to complain about", and it's also possible to do a cursory review that finds a dozen or so minor points. Sometimes it is possible to see that a reviewer is being very thorough, but we don't want to incent reviewers to write reams of text in order to demonstrate their thoroughness. , I'm sympathetic, but I don't see how to do this in a way that's fair to all nominators, since there are no doubt several FAC regulars in your position.  What if we based it on overall promotion rate instead?  If more than 30 promotions happen in a month, things are going fast, and extra nominations won't be much drag on FAC.  So at the end of the month, if we hit 30 promotions the delegates could ask if anyone with an active FAC would like to nominate another, and give permission for up to five additional nominations?  That would motivate everyone who wants to take advantage of this to do additional reviewing in order to speed promotion, but the delegates would be vetting thoroughness of review as they always do so cursory reviews would not help much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, and if 30 promotions a month would be a good yardstick then that would be a step in the right direction, but I still don't get that you can have two if you co-nom one of them but not two if you are a single nom. To me, the current arrangement makes it much easier for those that work in areas where there are multiple productive people working (and therefore areas already well represented on WP), and disadvantages those that work solo because there just aren't people to co-nom with in the less well-covered areas they work in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant discussion. The co-nom rule was added to prevent co-noms from being blocked from adding their own FACs, rather than the other way around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The effect is the same though, editors that are able to arrange co-noms are privileged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know if I'd use the word 'privileged' -- that'd be true of 'co-noms of convenience', where you get someone along for the ride just to let you have an extra article in the list, but genuine co-noms, where the participants have collaborated to get the article to a fit state for FAC, and are therefore both capable of fielding questions and comments during the review, are a great thing all round. I also don't think that such co-noms/collaborations slow things up because two people can often action comments quicker than one, and you have an extra person involved who hopefully feels obliged to do some reviewing of other noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's just permission for a second FAC that's being sought, then would it be acceptable to permit an 'honorary' co-nom? This could be someone who has not themselves edited the article significantly but has been involved in prior reviews of the article (at PR, GA or ACR), and who would be willing to attach their name to the nom but not be expected to be otherwise involved. This would piggyback onto currently accepted practice concerning multiple noms. The only issue I can see with this is ensuring that only editors who work in areas for which genuine co-noms are hard to find, as pointed out by PM, or who reciprocate by taking on more of the reviewing load, are allowed to take advantage of such a minor(?) relaxation of the current rule, so that it does not become general practice. Factotem (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for July
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July. I'll be out of the country for the first part of September, so the August statistics will probably be delayed till mid or late September. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deep Space Homer/archive3
I dunno whether coordinators deal with problem behaviours in FACses but if so Featured article candidates/Deep Space Homer/archive3 needs some go over I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I can think of maybe 10 reasons why people shouldn't care what I think on this topic. With that out of the way: FAC, and every other article review forum, relies to some extent on trust and shared expectations. Probably, none of the FA coords who are admins can treat this as "problem behaviours" and get involved, per WP:INVOLVED. If neutral admins have any thoughts to share, that would be great. There's a link in the FAC to a comment at a current RFA ... we should probably stay clear of that. (It's not any kind of problem that needs fixing; the crats are aware of the special circumstances in this case.) Popular culture articles, both at FAC and away from FAC, have different prose standards than, say, history articles. This leads to recurrent problems at FAC. We generally deal with this problem by ignoring it. I think the problem makes everyone a little uncomfortable, but no one has found a solution yet. We can probably agree that whatever is happening in this FAC is not a solution to the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I took a look. I now want to go edit somewhere else. Rarely, if ever, have those behavioral issues been successfully addressed. Were I a coord, I would archive the FAC now, before it spirals. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Popular culture articles may have been allowed a different prose standard, but should they? And why is it a "problem behaviour" when someone thinks that they shouldn't, and votes accordingly? Is the issue here simply that opposing an article's promotion has become unpopular? Eric   Corbett  19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing needs to be archived on the grounds of "behavioral issues". The article isn't in the right shape at the moment (and it's on that basis that it should be archived), but a good copy edit and a thorough search for any additional sources are needed for it to pass next time round. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said, SchroCat. That FAC is destined for failure, with three opposes. It also is seeing suboptimal behaviour from multiple users. Thus, I'd rather it be closed, before the discussion gets nastier. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 22:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By "nastier", do you mean before it gets to expose the inadequacies of the current reviewing system? Which among other things, would have in the past allowed articles like this one to be promoted as our best work? Eric   Corbett  22:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm talking about. Many of the strictest reviewers I've seen have been the politest; many of the nominators I've known who've had to work really hard, or had to deal with failure, have also remained polite throughout, and continued to assume good faith in their reviewers. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree, it is what you're talking about, and it's simply a personal attack against me. I've probably helped more articles through FAC than you've had hot dinners, but the truth has to be told, like it or not. Eric   Corbett  22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh what rot. My problem isn't with your review, or anyone else's, it's with what came after, from a whole bunch of editors: so your defensiveness is without basis. And that's about the last I'll say about it. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 23:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you find it necessary in one thread to post under two different personas? Eric   Corbett  00:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not particularly relevant, but as it happens, I'm travelling, am on my phone most of the time, and do not use my admin account on my phone for security reasons. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As the nominator, I agree with Jo-Jo. The article nomination has recently been a host for feuding between other editors. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 20:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Why Eric Corbett was attacked by Maury Markowitz for providing a review in good faith is beyond me. He may not have liked the conclusions that Eric came to, but reviewers are not here to just pat people on the back and push things through. Maury Markowitz should take note of that for next time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)