Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Operation Downfall/archive2

Good grief

 * moved from FAR page — Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh good grief. One week ago? Don't get me wrong, I see the comments by Nick-D and Hchc2009, and I've never actually seen either of them give a strong opinion without knowing exactly what they're talking about ... so this needs work. But the implied "Fix this right now, or I'm taking it to FAR!" doesn't work for me; that's harmful to the process of so-called "normal editing". Let's give editors time to work out the kinks, and bring it back if they don't. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief indeed. Dana has told me before one week is the standard notice for FAR, that's all I was doing, letting people know how serious this was. It was not a threat at all. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I'm sure if I had not mentioned FAR there, someone would be beating me up for not giving proper notice. Pumpkin Sky   talk  16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not targeting you, PumpkinSky, I'm a fan. I made exactly the same point over at the tenth Obama FAR ... there should never be a push to go to FAR quickly when there's anything contentious going on; it just doesn't have the desired effect, it creates an atmosphere of "threat" (though I'm sure none was intended) that interferes with "normal editing". One week isn't even enough time for Raul to get ILL sources, even if he were paying attention every minute, and you know that he's busy. We just had an Arbcom case request that had no resolution, and we recently had a FAR on one of Raul's articles; there's a ripe opportunity for drama here. Don't get me wrong ... I'm not saying that bad articles should be Featured, or saying that anyone is sacrosanct. I'm just saying that IMO Raul and others weren't given a reasonable chance to bring the article up to spec before this FAR nomination ... thus the "good grief". I apologize if it came off as dismissive; I'm in caffeine withdrawal (damn doctors). - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Caffeine withdrawal will do that to you! While the article does need work, I'd echo Dank's sentiment about patience here. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gents, I was merely following the guidelines as Dana explained them to me. I'm sure I can find the diff within a few hours. Would you like me to pull the FAR for, oh what, another week or so? But allow me to point out that on 29 Aug I posted notes of concern to both Operation Downfall and South Side, Chicago and today I filed FARs for both, so I have to ask, as politely as I can, why isn't this concern being shown for that FAR? If the problem is that you feel the 1-week is too short in and of itself, perhaps that guideline as Dana explained to it me should be revisited. Both these articles have been in sad shape for some time. I simply genuinely feel that FAs should not be allowed to stay FA in such a state. Now going diff hunting to find her exact wording... Pumpkin Sky   talk  17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff, wherein Dana says " If after a week you're right and no one's watching, feel free to bring it back". Pretty close to what I recalled. Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I count 3 people watching. Thoughts, anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Watching is one thing, actively editing it to improve it back to FA standards is another, which is surely what Dana meant. Also, you haven't answered my question about the South Side Chicago FAR and its 7 days notice, which is in much better shape that Operation Downfall, which needs major work, which no one has come close to starting yet, though there have been some edits. (was that a run on or what) ;-) Some articles do get more than 7 days notice (the monkey one), but then Red vs Blue had 9 days, and Stuyvesant High School had 5. These three were listed before today and are active. Wii was list today after these and had 9 days notice. Given this and Dana's post, 7 days is no way out of the norm. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I emailed PumpkinSky, and his reply and this paragraph have convinced me ... I withdraw my objection. I'll be happy to copyedit it after the new material has been added and vetted. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * NB: this doesn't change the logic of the discussion, but I think it's actually Nikkimaria who's being quoted above, not Dana. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OOPS. My apologies. It is indeed Nikki, not Dana. Pumpkin Sky   talk  16:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)