Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 1

FA standards
Bands:  The Beatles, Dream Theater,Duran Duran, Iron Maiden (band), The Jackson 5, Nirvana (band), Sex Pistols, Sly and the Family Stone, Simon and Garfunkel, The Supremes, The Temptations and Vanilla Ninja. Major differences in format. Jkelly 20:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Though there are major differences, some similarities to build on:
 * History: subsections as needed
 * Band members/Personnel/Lineup
 * Optional: Current/Former/Early/Other members
 * Discography and videography (subsections as needed)
 * Awards and certificates
 * Song samples/Audio
 * See also
 * Notes
 * References/Further reading
 * Bibliography
 * External links


 * And some major differences that could be largely standardized: Tuf-Kat
 * Studio style evolution
 * In film
 * General Statistics
 * Post-history and followers (make into legacy?)
 * Influences and Legacy (make into legacy?)
 * Influences and music (make into legacy?)
 * Song catalogue (merge into discography?)
 * Trivia
 * Progressive metal pioneers (make into "legacy"?)
 * Concert reputation
 * Logo and imagery
 * Epilogue
 * Bootleg culture
 * Cover songs
 * Iron Maiden in popular culture (make into "legacy"?)
 * Current Schedule

Start-up issues and other concerns
There are several problems that need to be addressed so that "Featured article review" can operate more smoother. For instance:
 * 1) Organization of articles being reviewed - Currently there are three groups, with the last group being split into sub-groups. I believe that the last group should not be split into sub-groups; instead the explanations are noted with each article (this also solves the TOC formatting problem and makes the listing format clearer).
 * 2) Getting more publicity for articles being reviewed - Is there a possibility of creating a template that notifies whether a featured article is being reviewed? Any other ideas of getting more publicity for FA review?
 * 3) Time on the board and achiving - How long should an article be reviewed? Also, if a review is "finished" should it be archived somewhere?

These are several ideas to improve the current state of FA review. I like the idea having featured articles placed under review to maintain quality, but currently there are several issues that need to be resolved before this whole thing could become very effective. Pentawing 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been putting Template:FAF on the talk pages of articles under review, but I've been trying putting them on the bottom of the page rather than further clutter up the top of the talk. When I close a review, I put the conversation on the talk page (and remove the template).  "Uncontroversial reviews" last for one week, and other reviews last two weeks.  (I'm certainly willing to discuss all of the above.  Please do suggest ways to get more visibility.) I agree on removing the articles of concern from the TOC -- I only meant for it to be a list, but then I added some specific comments and then I imported the needs-images discussions from the FAC page, and so somebody put them into subsections.  Are you suggesting moving the discussion to the article talk page?  I'd be fine with that. Tuf-Kat 06:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If I read correctly, any closed reviews are placed on the article's talk page and the review template is removed (I don't have a problem with that). The procedure of placing the review template on the article's talk page seems a bit complicated, though I haven't experimented with it yet so I can't think of a way to improve it at the moment. The amount of time an article is being reviewed should be two weeks minimum (unless there is a concensus stating whether the article is okay or should have its featured status removed).


 * As for the last section, I removed the sub-sections, given that some article may go under several of those categories. Pentawing 04:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the talk template's a bit complicated. Originally, I didn't provide a link to the old version and the diff, but I thought doing so would make it easier for casual viewers to see the changes and provide comments.  Unfortunately, that requires providing the revision id, which is the most complicated part of the template.  Displaying the number somewhere on WP:FAF would make it somewhat simpler.  Your removal of the subsections looks great! Tuf-Kat 06:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (Oh, and yes, you read correctly) How would everybody feel about moving the "featured article examples" to a different page? It makes this one kind of cluttered.  If so, can anyone think of a better name?  Also, how much should it take to be an article of concern?  I originally thought only big stuff like no images or references, but I now lean more towards any outstanding and unaddressed concerns. Tuf-Kat 06:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The "featured article examples" should be moved to a separate article, though I don't know if the information is necessary (though it is centralized, the same information can be found in several Wikiprojects. Anyone who is interested in getting an article featured can refer to current featured articles for inspiration). If the information is moved to its own article, then it should probably be called "featured article format examples." As for articles of concern, I would focus on articles with image issues (no images, image with copyright concerns), reference and sourcing problems, and articles with tags on them (e.g. clean-up, stub, NPOV, copyvio). Articles should have as few blemishes as possible. Pentawing 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This review stage is a really good idea. However, it lacks a proponent. It needs someone to take ownership of the article and fix whatever is brought up. A reviewer can only edit so much without the technical knowledge of the subject or access to the references. I have reviewed a few but I consider myself not knowledgable enough in the subject (or rather not uninterested enough in the subject) to improve the content of article. As such only minor formatting changes can be accomplished. --maclean25 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that, in theory, all featured articles should be in basically good shape as far as content goes. If an article under review requires more than minor formatting changes and tweaking, then it probably shouldn't be featured.  I think FARC is too lenient -- any article not up to standards and without a fix on the near horizon should not be considered "featured".  Also, when I dreamed up this system, the idea was that an editor who makes a major change to a featured article should open a review to ensure there is still consensus that is feature-worthy.  If an article is not reviewed because of a major change for one year or somesuch, then a review of the minor changes would be mandated.
 * Anyway, that was my vision. We have a lot of featured articles that were promoted a long time ago and need major work -- this throws a wrench into the system, which I now realize may not scale well.  So... that's the story of the creation of FAR.  Tuf-Kat 07:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that articles that have tags highlighting quality issues (stubs, cleanup, disputed neutrality, etc.) be placed under "active review" rather than "articles of concern" (such tags pose a problem for the perception of quality for FAs the longer such tags remain on these articles). I also tried the FAF tagging system. So far, it seems straight forward, though there are some organizational issues with the FAF page, especially since it hasn't been updated for a while. Pentawing 06:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Getting FAF in shape is very time-consuming and tedious, so it's very slow-going. So you're saying an article with a tag should be under active review until the problem is fixed?  Would an "article of concern" then only be for minor problems that don't have a tag?  I guess my opinion is really that an article bad enough to need a cleanup tag ought not be featured anymore. Tuf-Kat 05:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, what I was thinking is that if there were a tag, it alerts readers that there is indeed a problem with the article. For a featured article, it is extremely critical (and could lead people to wonder why the article is featured in the first place, even when the tag was placed on the article after it was promoted). What I am trying to do is to find a means of repairing the problem as quickly as possible. For now, it seems that "active reviews" is the fastest path while "articles of concern" appears to take longer to address (probably because it is perceived as resolving long-term issues and is not seen as being urgent). Pentawing 05:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd be fine with that. I just worry that right now there are so many featured article that don't really meet modern standards that this page will get cluttered with barely noticed reviews.  I suppose if it reaches that point, we can always figure out a different way to try things.  Do you know of any tagged articles to start with? Tuf-Kat 06:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So far only Montreal-Mirabel International Airport, which I listed. So far, I have not seen any other featured articles with similar problems. Pentawing 06:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
I just added Myxobolus cerebralis to the uncontroversial category, given this diff. I was wondering if I should take any of the other steps like adding the {FAR} template. The instructions don't seem to explain what to do. Thanks, Dave (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See Featured article review. Add  to the talk page. Tuf-Kat 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I wanted to make sure that the instructions were the same regardless of which catagory it was being nominated in (I thought maybe it needed a third kind of template in addition to Current and Concern)  Dave (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, the "controversial"/"uncontroversial" distinction is just for ease of commenting. The only practical effect it has is how long the review stays active for at minimum. Tuf-Kat 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New FARC Guidelines: must go through Featured article review and raise issues on FA article's talk page
I have proposed modifying the FARC guidelines to say, ""Before placing an article on FARC, editors should first either raise the issues with the article on the Wikipedia:Featured article review page or on the article's talk page." I hope editors here will check out this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates and let their views be known. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with the proposal. So far, not a lot of people seem to be aware of Featured Article Review. Pentawing 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Better state that on the FARC talk page. People there so far don't like the idea.--Alabamaboy 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxmans list
Taman made a list of featured articles with reference problems in April 2005, User:Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems. All the talk pages of the relevant articles were notified, and for many of these the references situation never changed. I have nominated a few for FARC, but since there are so many can anyone think of a better way to address this problem. I'm not interested in trying to add sources for topics I have no knowledge of - since that may make more of a problem than it fixes. Any thoughts on how to proceed with these articles would be appreciated.--nixie 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've updated the list and there are only 25 left. I'm open to ideas about the best way to encourage fixing them up, but in a week or so I plan to start nominating them a few at a time at FARC, after adding another notice to their talk pages that I plan to nominate them. Major progress has been made, as originally over 190 were listed, but I think it's been more than enough time. There's only really one I'm qualified to reference, and I won't be able to do that until next week. I will commit to researching and referencing Labour economics then though. - Taxman Talk 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Taxman, I've just been pointed towards this page and new policy, and checked your list. Could there be consideration of a category of articles with an unusually high representation of "questionable" (to be defined, perhaps according to WP:RS) sources or a lack of balance in biased sources? For example, refer to the discussion on Featured article removal candidates/Hugo Chávez.  In its original FA status, Hugo Chávez contained a lot of references, but it has been argued on the FARC that the references are not from a balance of sources, and include a disproportionate representation of biased sources.  This problem doesn't fit into your category scheme, so I'm wondering if future situations like this could be accounted for somewhere? Sandy 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting articles based on FAR consensus?
I saw suggested on WP:FARC that perhaps an article should instead be brought here, where if consensus was reached, it could be reverted. Is that some sort of policy or power vested in WP:FAR, or would that simply be a...reversion, same as anyone could make? --Tsavage 05:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Same sort of reversion based on consensus as could be formed on any random talk page. Tuf-Kat 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ... "reversion based on consensus" ... Hugo Chávez was reverted to a six-month-old FA version without a single talk page comment wrt reversion anywhere. I'm guessing from your phrasing above that isn't the best way to proceed? Sandy 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:FARC / WP:FAR
A consensus seems to be emerging on Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates for some kind of merger between the review process on WP:FAR and the removal process on WP:FARC. More ideas and points of view are welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea (though I can't think of any details at the moment). So far, there has been little to no activity on the FAR and not many people seem to realize of its existence. PentawingTalk 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No category!
This page has not been categorised! Shouldn't it go somewhere in Category:Wikipedia featured content or a related category? That might increase its exposure slightly. I'll add it. Carcharoth 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this page is a ghost town and should probably be demonlished (the FA process tends to spawn off unnecessary pages and this is one of them). Raul654 06:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't realise that. Thanks. Is that "Help Desk" (Featured Article Help Desk) and its category (Category:Featured Article Help Desk staff) another such set of pages? Carcharoth 08:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of those, and they look dead as well. Perhaps they should be closed down? I really don't see what purpose they serve, given that we have peer review, the GA process, etc. The Disco King 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The new page
With notice placed on the FARC page to redirect everything here hopefully the ghost town will be brought back to life. There's a lot of things outstanding to do though, such as renaming/editing Templates and Cats to reflect the change. I'm not going to dig in editing those things until hearing from others. Marskell 09:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerns
Now that the FARC process has been integrated into this one, I'm concerned that:

(1) the prose on the project page needs to be significantly improved;

(2) there seems to be a sense that nominators are obligated to take a hands-on role in the improvement of their nomination ("The nominator should be willing to return to institute changes to the article as they are offered or at least strike through issues as they are addressed")—this will reduce the field of nominators and inhibit the scrutiny of FAs that was part of the old FARC process; and

(3) the term "Structural review" is not right. Tony 09:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the Types of Nominations explanations should just be cut in-half. There was a tendency when drafting it to try to elaborate on every possible angle but it reads as over-explanation at the moment. Marskell 09:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just cut some things and removed 2. "Structural review" struck me as a decent title for what's expected in that section. Any other idea? Marskell 10:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms "basic reviews", "structural reviews" and "featured articles of concern". The grammatical category for each should be consistent; currently, two refer to the process, and one to the article. "Structural" has a specific meaning that is too narrow here. Structure on what level? Basic reviews might well involve structural alterations at the clause level, or perhaps above this. Structural reviews might involve fixing facts or citations that don't impinge on the structure. "Basic" could be construed as referring to fundamental changes, whereas I think what is intended is that this first category be less serious, requiring minor changes and/or updating.
 * Further concerns.

What about "Minor review" and "Major review" and "Critical review"?

"if you feel that the article should be removed, explain why you feel it is impossible to address a specific issue or issues": this is overly restrictive; it's always possible to address an issue—how could a reviewer ever vote to remove in the light of this requirement? I strongly feel that the onus to make improvements should be on the contributors to the article under review, not on the reviewers themselves. Currently, the wording suggests the latter. Tony 11:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with "critical" is the other meaning (related to criticism); it's the "serious" meaning that I intended. Alternatives might be "key review" or "pivotal review". Tony 12:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the title of the third category should differ from the first two given its different nature. We might even call it Featured article removal candidates... This is to emphasize that this is the section were actual FA status may removed. "Minor" and "Major" are simple enough. Marskell 12:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very good idea, Merskell. What do others think?

Changed FARC links to FAR
Since Featured article review is now the process for improving and removing FAs, I changed the link on the main FA page and Template:Fapages to reflect this. While Featured article removal candidates will continue for the pages that are already listed there, we don't want people to mistakenly add new listings to that page. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I also changed the link at Template:FARC to reflect this new situation. --Alabamaboy 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem
I've found a major problem here and I can't fix it. On Template:FARC, the category link needs to be changed so that it links to FAR, not FARC, an issue Tony first raised at Featured article removal candidates/Space Race. However, when I changed the link it didn't work (upon discovering this I promptly changed the link back to FARC). Anyone know how to fix this? Just to be clear, unless we fix this category link at the top of each FAR nomination will be a link to the FARC page. Also, I sincerely hope that my attempt to fix this issue didn't result in the crashing of Wikipedia's servers a few minutes later! While I doubt that this is the case, whoever tries to fix this issue should be careful because this template links to a ton of FARC and FA talk pages.--Alabamaboy 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is done. There was a spot right in the template itself you missed. Plus Joel31 just added a category. Marskell 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Though, indeed some renames will be in order. Perhaps an admin can delete Template:FAR and we can move Template:FARC to it. Marskell 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do that.--Alabamaboy 15:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait! I've just made the language identical on Template:FAR. This is actually best. Either template will create a sub-page here. Onwards and upwards! Marskell 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Crap. Already did it. Want me to undo? I'll wait until you say either way. I will state, though, that deleting the FAR page and moving the FARC has created a ton of double redirects that will need to be fixed.--Alabamaboy 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless I hear from you soon I'm going to simply revert the FARC template to the FAR language. I agree with you that the best solution is to have both ther FAR and FARC templates existing with the smae language.--Alabamaboy 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just sent you a message to that affect :). Marskell 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Did it. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's still a problem. Now the current FARC nominee pages don't link to their respected FARC pages. I'm going to reverted the FARC link to its original setting (i.e., to the FARC category rather than the FAR category). As you said, this way the old pages work while all new pages will use the new system. --Alabamaboy 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Shit, ya. I guess we'll have to leave it until what's left on FARC clears out. Marskell 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Still, it appears that everything is now working. Let's call this a last-minute BETA test of the FAR system. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

FARC Consensus re: sources
So on the FARC page, the general agreement seemed to be that if an article passed FAC before inline cites were required, it couldn't be demoted simply for lacking inline cites. I'm in favour of carrying that over to the new FAR page. (I guess this pertains to the current "Space Race" review as well, but it makes a bit more sense to post this here.) Comments? The Disco King 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as an article had references lacking in-line citations was generally not a reason to demote. However, it was expected that the corresponding references be converted to in-line citations whenever possible/needed. Joelito (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And that it could be considered as an additional reason to demote. So not as the sole reason, but one among others. - Taxman Talk 11:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I missed the consensus process, but I feel there is nothing wrong with demoting articles that are not up to current standards. I feel citations are a very important part of this, due to WP:V and the fact that we do not have the credibility of a print encyclopedia due to anyone being able to edit an article. But if people are against demotion, perhaps there could be another solution, such as a special template:unsourced template that states the article was given FA status before intext citations were required, and that editors are encouraged to bring it up to current standards. I feel that if we just let all of these articles slide, they are never going to improve and get their proper citations. --Andrew c 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, it would be ideal if articles used inline citations, but let's face it, simply having well-researched articles with references puts most of these FAs well ahead of the game. I would agree that adding inline cites eventually would be a good idea. Perhaps a project like Taxman's, where he posted messages on the talk pages of all the FAs with no references, would be in order here. Give 'em six months to a year to add inline cites, and then we start phasing them out of FA. What does everybody think? User:The Disco King (not signed in)204.40.1.129 14:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Overall, this idea sounds reasonable, but I think a year is too long. Anville 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of FAs without inlines. I've started a list which you can see here, and I've been working my way down the FA list, checking every article. So far, I've finished up to the "Food and Drink" section, and the list is already REALLY long. It would be a massive project to try to get them all to have inlines. The Disco King 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you calculate a % for us? Obviously that won't be an accurate extrapolation, but it can help give us an idea of the range of the problem. And yes, I agree another notify and then after some time phase them out is a good way to go. Anville you may think a year is too long, but it's been well over a year since I tagged the talk pages of all FA's with no references, and one of those recently survived a FARC and there's still 6 left including that one. (I really should go update that again.) - Taxman Talk 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue Andrew is the footnotes don't guarantee better verifiability than just listing the references at the bottom. In fact it can be worse. An article with 20 footnotes, those 20 might be the only referenced facts in the article with the rest being original research, whereas I know for a fact on some of the older FA's written by some of our best editors that every single fact in the article was distilled from the listed sources, though no footnotes were added because that just wasn't done at the time. So footnotes can give the illusion of better sourcing. Now do we need both? Of course, but don't lose sight of the potential problem. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've noted that last point on my User:The Disco King/FAs with citation problems page. Some of these FAs with no citations look like they were incredibly well-researched. As for a percentage...Maybe when I'm done. So far, having finished through the "Geology" section of FAs, I'd say at least 150 either have no footnotes, or have very few. I'm not sure how many that's out of, though. Some should be easy to add references to (there's a surprising number of India-related FAs which are inadequate citation-wise, but I imagine Wikiproject India will deal with those pretty promptly), while others may be contentious (like Global warming). The Disco King 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (P.S. - If this is any kind of indication, about 43 of 91 articles in the "History" category either had no citations or very few - that's almost 50%!) The Disco King 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I ran the numbers-there are 341 FA's through the Geology section, and you have 132 on your list with no inline citations and 72 more with few. So that's 38% of the articles you've checked so far have none and 60% ((132+72)/341) have few or none. So that means there's a significant problem and it won't be fixed overnight. And based on the problem noted above I wouldn't think 10 is a borderline number, that's just not enough if it can't be confidently said that the entire rest of the article came from a systhesis of sources too. It's a decent number to demarcate a problem, but having 9 or ten isn't really great either. I do finally now see the problem other people have pointed out that we may have been better at times when we just required references for the whole article, and footnotes can mask that. But again, both is the answer. - Taxman Talk 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (moved back in) Ten was pretty arbitrary, I'll agree, but if it's any consolation, as of the end of the Mathematics section, there haven't been many with more than ten and less than twenty. If article have them, they seem to have a ton of them. It is a significant issue if we do decide to move towards phasing it in as a requirement for current FAs - I had thought that at least half were problematic while I was doing it. It's a real pickle...The Disco King 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles first
WP:FAF went totally batshit when we edited the FAR template. Should we try to revive it? There was a two month period this year where it didn't receive a single edit. Perhaps scrap it and start afresh, listing what has been reviewed as they finish? Marskell 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea of FAF is a good one, but the project does seem kinda dead. Is the plan to eventually review all of the featured articles on this page? (That's a HUGE task, really...) Either way, it would be good to somehow revitalize FAF...Is anything salvagable? The Disco King 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. I see what you actually meant. Yeah, that's tricky. How did that happen? The Disco King 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The short answer: it's a complicated template thing and I can't even program my VCR :). If we do want to revive it, we can create an FAF template identical to the FAR before my changes and replace the letters FAR with FAF on the page (clueless as I am, I think Excel could handle that quickly). But before that: do we need it? Could, for instance, the archive page for this serve as a go-to point for people working on Wiki 1.0 to look at what FAs are up-to-date? Marskell 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on what the goals of this page are. Do we want to try to review every FA on Wikipedia? As a sidenote, we can't go into the history on FAF, because all the old versions of the page run into the same problem. I'm not sure if it was a really useful page, though. How many articles actually went through the old FAR? And with FA standards improving so much over the last year or so, is a link to the originally promoted version of an FA going to do anybody any good? The Disco King 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the page and think it should be put out of its misery. Interesting, though, how it went crazy with the FAR change.--Alabamaboy 13:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Two issues
First, is the option open for an article that is undergoing or has undergone a minor review unsuccessfully to be transferred to the major review category?

Second, the instructions for listing in both minor and major categories include:

"Specify the featured article criteria the article fails to meet."

Yet failing to meet FA criteria is conspicuously absent from the description of minor reviews. By contrast, it is specified for major reviews. Something needs to give. Tony 09:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes—if a couple people say so, it can simply be moved down. The review doesn't need to formally restart to do this.
 * 2) I rm'ed the note from the procedure. It's made clear under Major review that it's required in that regard. Marskell 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell: In your changed version, what does "this" refer to?


 * Minor reviews are for FAs for which updating and relatively light editing are required. Along with copy-editing, this includes the checking of references and their formatting, and the scrutiny of technical articles to ensure that they are up-to-date."

Better as follows?


 * Minor reviews are for FAs for which updating and relatively light editing are required; these reviews include the checking of references and their formatting, and the scrutiny of technical articles to ensure that they are up-to-date.

Tony 11:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This referred to "updating and relatively light editing". However, the sentence you suggest is fine. Marskell 12:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FAs with citation problems
I've finished (I think) my list of Featured Articles which don't use inline citations. It's at User:The Disco King/FAs with citation problems. About 57% FAs either have few (less than 10) inline citations or no inline cites at all; about 35% have no inline citations whatsoever. The question is: What's to be done about this? There were many FAs which had a plethora of sources and are doubtless incredibly well-researched - see, for example, Abraham Lincoln or Libertarianism - but which used few or no inline cites. When a similar problem arised regarding FAs without sources, Taxman left notes on the talk pages of all the applicable FAs encouraging them to apply to current FA standards. Should we do something similar now, give articles a grace period to phase in inline citations, and then start removing the articles with none? Should we leave things alone? I'm in favour of taking action, especially as some of these articles do appear to be poorly sourced. What does everybody else think? The Disco King 21:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly in favor of leaving them alone. If they are poorly sourced, that's a problem. Well-sourced ones with no inline citations should be grandfathered in. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Leave them alone. Inline cites are nice and of course needed for all new FACs, but adding them after the fact is a bit much to ask for when the article already has good references. --mav 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This question has come up a number of times in the past. The answer we agreed on was to bring them up to standard or defeature them a few at a time. I'm in favor of doing it like that. In other words, I think we should aim to have 100% of the featured articles with inline citations, which is why I oppose grandfathering them in. That doesn't mean I think immediately defeaturing hundreds of articles is a good idea, but I believe we should hold them accountable to the same standards. Raul654 02:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So would you be in favour of doing something like Taxman did with the unreferenced FAs? Maybe not with a specific time limit, but a simple notice stating that this article no longer complies with the featured article criteria, and needs to use inline citations per WP:V? IMHO, we can't suddenly and without warning start defeaturing articles which have no inline cites when for months we've been insisting that that's an insufficient reason for defeaturing; at the same time, though, we can't go on indefinitely with a whole bunch of FAs of inferior quality. The Disco King 13:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We could give a two month notice in the article's talk page so they may comply with the in-line criteria. Also we should contact a relevant WikiProject. Joelito (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave a message on the talk page, and drop a note on the primary author's talk page (most FAs have a single one). And drop a note on the revalant wikiproject's talk page, yes. Raul654 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is that an article like Abraham Lincoln or Libertarianism might have been impeccably researched when it was first promoted, but in the following months, it is almost certain to have decayed. A slow, steady stream of well-meaning edits can make any FA erode and crumble into a gravelly heap of cruft. (This has happened to Calvin and Hobbes at least twice, for example.) In the absence of inline citations, it becomes extremely difficult to tell whether a given paragraph is legitmately derived from a source down in the bibliography or is fabricated out of nothing more substantial than an anonymous IP's prejudices. Standards have gone up, while in too many places, absolute quality has gone down. :-( I would advocate a Taxmanesque approach, leaving notes on the talk page and other places Raul654 indicated, with a time limit somewhere between two and six months before serious action is taken.

Yesterday, I spent an hour and a half fixing up Technetium: merging the little bits that had been added since its promotion into a reasonable flow, massaging the prose into something readable (if not truly brilliant), and converting the mix of citation methods into cite.php footnotes. This is something else worth considering: I don't know how many FAs use -based "invisible references", but they need to be switched over into something better. Anville 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked into the Inote issue, and performed a rudimentary experiment here, where I first pasted the unformatted list of problem FAs into the article, then pasted the unformatted list of Inote articles as the next revision, and then looked at the diff. As far as I can tell, only one common article popped up (San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge), and that not even directly (the link was to the article's FAC, where it was suggested that the template be used; the actual article doesn't appear to use it). I don't know exactly how accurate a comparison like this might be, but not many articles appear to use the Inote template. The Disco King 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I'll take a look at Technetium. (Never mind, I misunderstood...)

The list is plain paranoia ! There are some articles in that list that do not need *loads* inline referencing, since most of the data is taken from fewer primary sources. For example, I may read four primary sources (books) on Akbar, and write the article based on what historians were saying, which should be more or less similar. If there is something new, contentious, or a figure, then only will the need for inline referencing arise. Some of the articles make use of inotes, which by the way are NOT obsolete. If inline citations are required at a particular location, a cite notice should bring to attention the need for one. eg Geography of India needs no excess inline citations since most of the article is sourced from a single book, and such information is freely available. I'm also not sure why the list includes "set" number (10) to make a FA "inline citation problem free". Should authors to mark every paragraph with a footnote that it was sourced from Book A? Editors should use their common sense to mark up inline references rather than this silly fad that requires each sentence to be punctuated by footnotes. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will agree that ten is a pretty arbitrary number. I also agree that many articles on this list are well-researched. But barely any of these articles would pass an FAC today. Our standards have improved, and these articles no longer fulfil criteria #1 of WP:WIAFA - they don't exemplify our best work. I don't propose that we purge all of these articles from our list of FAs - ideally, they should all retain their FA status. I also don't think that we should keep them as FAs indefinitely, though. Requirements were extended retroactively in terms of references (see Taxman's comments above), and that has been a slow, forgiving process. A similar approach should be taken here. (By the way - if you're willing to go through all 500+ articles on this list and find in each article the information that needs sourcing, and then add the cite notice at each location, you're welcome to go ahead. In my opinion, the proposed course of action - letting the primary authors of the page add inline citations as required - is not only more efficient, but more reasonable.) The Disco King 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with The Disco King. Enough of this double standard! I think all FAs without inline citations should be given a certain time to upgrade to inline citations, and demoted if not. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bunchofgrapes and mav, most of the Featured articles without inline citation are well written and sourced. A few may qualify for removal as they need inline citations like Cambodia for example. But they are mostly of good quality so no reason to remove 350+ articles from featured status. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is advocating that we remove all of them from featured status right away. The main concern is making sure that featured articles represent the best of Wikipedia. In an extreme case, if the authors of each of these pages were completely unwilling to add any inline citations, then I would advocate the removal of all of them. But what's being offered here is a chance to improve our best work so that it's up to the high standards that we now have. I think that many of these articles would be greatly improved by having inline citations added, not just because of the aura of legitimacy that they add, but because it provides an opportunity to ensure that these articles are factually accurate. Many of these old FAs are in surprisingly bad shape; click a few at random on this list and you'll see what I mean. To respond to allegations of paranoia - this is not a witch hunt. Nobody is being targetted. This is just an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Cheers! The Disco King 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I clicked 5 articles at random and only one Samantha Smith is in bad shape. Articles like Habsburg Spain which is wonderfully written and has plenty of non-inline refs, if no inline refs are added to the article in like 2 months, that means it will get defeaured. That's why I don't agree with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaranda (talk • contribs)

 If there is something new, contentious, or a figure, then only will the need for inline referencing arise. I disagree. The world advances, things change, and even (older) featured articles have mistakes which escaped detection on initial FA review. ALL statements should be referenced all the time, not only new edits. Inline referencing, even on existing FAs, should be enforced as rigorously and quickly as possible. Sandy 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. I really don't see why it's such a big deal to ask the editors of the best articles on Wikipedia to confirm that the statements made in their articles are factually accurate. I don't see that there's any pressing need to defeature articles without inline citations immediately, but in the long run, it's not in Wikipedia's best interests to have articles which are poorly sourced being featured. The Disco King 19:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Case in point: I just overhauled Trigonometric function, because I like working on math and science topics.  It had an unholy mixture of inotes, pseudo-Harvard-style parentheticals and external hyperlinks, which are now all cite.php footnotes.  Big swaths of the article do not, in my judgment, require too many explicit references, because they contain only mathematical definitions and formulas which are the same in hundreds of textbooks.  Specify a couple books in the bibliography and you're set.  However, the History section of the same article required an armful of footnotes (yes, that is a slightly grisly image), because by its very nature the material in that section is more open to debate.  People of nationality X love to magnify the accomplishments of mathematicians who lived in their country hundreds of years ago; it's foolish, but they do it.  "Foobarius of Rotundia calculated &pi; to forty-seven decimal places in the year 22!" they scream.  Consequently, the standards for referencing must be higher &mdash; to keep out the riffraff.


 * It is entirely possible that an article will be adequately referenced thanks to comments like "See chapters 2 and 3 of Chudyk's History of Mathematics" or "In book four of Herodotus's History, he writes..." If someone posts a notice to an older FA's talk page asking for inline references, the people who visit that talk page may decide that the current referencing is adequate, or only requires minor updating.  This is not about having a footnote fetish; the point is to uphold encyclopedic standards in the most reliable way.


 * I would also like to point out that not all problems are apparent to casual inspection. Off the top of your head, and without using any other reference material, could you identify that an article was exaggerating the accomplishments of Democritus or putting a spin job on Heliogabalus?  I doubt I could tell whether a given paragraph in Tutankhamun was legitimate scholarship or not, unless the fabrication was truly blatant (e.g., saying he was murdered by UFOs).


 * Anville 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Horsefeathers, and that's being polite. When your list has Cantos and Jonathan Wild and 1755 Lisbon Earthquake on it, the problem is not in the articles, but in the person compiling the list.  Each of those articles has heavy referencing, with each statement of fact deriving from a source having a parenthetical reference to the work and page number of the source.  Calling that a "reference problem" is insane and absurd.  One more time for the new congregants: we must never put the format ahead of the content.  These are all articles that would pass muster in a peer reviewed journal (and this I know).  To try to say that they're somehow no longer feature quality because some fetishist has a burr up his...saddle...over one citational method over another is absolutely outrageous.  Further, if one of the ones that I wrote that has citations -- all according to scholarly and published standards -- gets listed on FARC because some imbecilic love of footnotes has overcome sense and sanity, then I will vote for its removal and by damn never lift a finger to cite an article again.  Geogre 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Like the introduction to DK's list says, articles which use other citation methods than footnotes will be taken off the list once they are identified. It is probably harder to "eyeball" Harvard references than cite.php footnotes; any list of this nature will inevitably be skewed toward articles which can be identified automatically.  For heaven's sake, since when is a list which a person compiled in their spare time and deposited in userspace an official document immune to change?


 * Two of the five articles I personally pushed to FA use Harvard-style references. Will I ever bother to change them?  Probably not &mdash; no, almost certainly not.  If an article of that type came up on FARC, I would definitely not vote to de-list, and if I saw no other issues, I would ask for a keep or even a speedy keep.  The only style of inline citation I don't enjoy is inline hyperlinking, largely because it provides no means of listing the date a URL was last accessed.  The most I'd ever ask is that the citation style within one article be uniform.  I would probably even sign off on an annotated bibliography in which the references list specifies which source was used for which chunk of the article.


 * The typography of citations does not concern me. What concerns me is the inevitable growth of POV, OR and all the other things both our policies and plain good sense forbid, and against which some form of inline citation is a good remedy.


 * Sheesh. Anville 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my method in checking these articles was to scan quickly down to the bottom, see if there was a "Notes" section filled with footnotes, and if not, put it on the list. I had over one thousand articles to check, and I figured I wouldn't miss too many Harvard-style FAs (since Harvard seems to be a rarely-used (though perfectly-valid) style). I have no problems with Harvard-style citations. At all. Even an annotated bibliography like Anville mentioned would be fine by me. The Disco King 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I am paranoid about this, but with cause. I have, again and again with FA's, seen a creeping proceduralism overtake reading the blasted things.  When I look at FAC these days, I see lots of "objects" but very few references to what the articles say.  Either they're style-sheet opinions offered up as Gospel truth or they're "my favorite citational style isn't being used," and that drives me nuts.  Many of the people making nominations have worked pretty hard on their articles, and it would be nice if they were spoken to about the words (and not the wording).  However, I've largely given up.  When I see, though, this proceduralism carried over, or what sure as shootin' looks like it, to "how can we get rid of those things errantly passed before I showed up to object to everything that doesn't have the latest php format," and that's what the list looked like (half our FA's), my fuse gets overloaded.  Can people please begin using precise terminology and not say "inline cites" when they mean "footnotes" or "references?"  "Inline" sounds a lot like "footnote," and it is used interchangeably so often that one can be forgiven for seeing stealth where none was intended, I hope.  Geogre 21:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Insofar as the featured article process is concerned, an 'inline citation' is one which is visible to the reader, and is associated with some specific part of the article. Harvard (or other parenthatical) styles, foot/ref templates, cite.php, 'etc are all acceptable formats (note: Inote is not acceptable because it is not visible to the reader). Objections that an article uses one of these instead of another are invalid (and please, please quote me on that). Raul654 21:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You do bring up a good point Geogre. The majority of voters do not read the article completely and this is not acceptable. The question is, how can we be sure that voters have read the article thoroughly? Joelito (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't. I expect it is more worthwhile to ask, "How can we inspire voters to read the articles carefully, and how can we attune ourselves to ignore the ones who don't?"  This is probably a topic better discussed in a different thread on another page, though.  Anville 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading the blasted things (cf. "Reading to Object")
For my part, I don't necessarily blame people for reading with an eye toward objection, as FAC got flooded with junk and naive offerings. It gets tempting to start reading for the first failing rather than the virtues. Lord knows, if other people hadn't, I would have stepped in to object to the 4th nom. on a particular pop song, for example, when the thing just isn't very good and hasn't gotten better enough and the personalities involved are so objectionable. However, when we look for the first failing, we can inevitably fall into proceduralism. I know it's difficult, and sometimes troll food, to try to argue out reasons beyond procedure, but, if we don't start, we're going to be so automatic and so legalistic that no one with good stuff is going to try anymore. We ought to have a quick removal for trolling noms, but we ought to be very careful to stop ourselves every single time and, every single time, read first and then decide if we need to find a reason to object. Geogre 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Another problem with making objections always procedural (because we're reading to object) is that we will soon (ahem...ok, already) get people writing articles that meet requirements and yet are immeasurably dull, slight, and irrelevant and then demanding that they pass FAC. "I checked off every box on the sheet!"  Folks need to know that "the best Wikipedia has to offer" applies to more than filling out forms and formally fitting procedures.  Geogre 12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear hear, and slap on the back while pressing a sloshing mug of something warm and fermented into Geogre's hands. I convert things to cite because it is easy and makes me feel useful.  It has bugger all with the underlying quality of the article what kind of referencing there is for example, and different styles suit different subjects.  Please, away foul tickbox! *splashes wikiwater*  Back into the grey mists of shop-keepers's imagination from whence you sprung! *display's jimbo icon* Begone!  brenneman  {L} 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Back in the early days of Mystery Science Theater 3000, after Joel and his robot friends watched the horrible movie, Joel would ask the 'bots to tell one good thing and one bad thing about it. Perhaps we could institute a similar procedure on FAC.  (Half-joke.)  Anville 16:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, my stand is somewhere between mav's/Bunchofgrapes', Raul's and Nichalp's. We shouldn't grandfather these in, but we shouldn't rush to defeature them. I liked how the Taxman project worked out - we defeatured articles very slowly, bit by bit. (And those were totally unverified articles!) Here, we're talking about defeaturing articles which have already provided references! IMO, there's no point in focusing on this procedural issue unless there are some clear issues that need to be resolved. For instance, as Geogre has noted, it's quite easy to write an article based on a few books, particularly when you're writing on either a very detailed or a very general subject. (In the former case, one or two specialist books can often cover everything, and in the latter, there will be tonnes of books abounding.) If it's clear that the content in an article comes solely/largely from some reference books devoted to the subject of the article, it shouldn't be an issue if the article has no footnotes. However, there are always some exceptions, such as when you want to quote someone specifically, or when you are referring to some finer point of a dispute.
 * If it's not clear what I'm saying, I'm saying use some bloody common sense. There's no point in asking people to footnote for the sake of footnoting; yes, prioritise it, but don't make it a high priority! Much of the content in Coca-Cola relating to the drink's history can actually be backed up by any decent reference book such as Mark Pendergrast's. Likewise, a few good reference books are all that you need to write an FA-level article on The Beatles. Why go through all the trouble of footnoting to a minimum point of let's say 10 footnotes when all you should be footnoting is what needs to be noted? It's nonsensical! Footnotes must be used judiciously, not applied sloppily and liberally without thinking simply because "Well, if an article improves because it has more footnotes, the more footnotes we add to all articles, the better our encyclopaedia gets!" sounds nice. For articles on contentious issues such as Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia or Ketuanan Melayu, by all means, demand footnotes. But for straightforward articles where 90% of the content can be corroborated by a couple of books, why demand that we go the full nine yards?
 * Anyway, this has turned into a diatribe against irrational application of footnotes, so I'd better turn back to my main point: yes, encourage the usage of footnotes. Require it of new FAs (although please don't demand that every sentence be footnoted unless absolutely necessary, as with controversial articles). But for older FAs which have already cited sources, let's be more lenient. For instance, those with webpage citations are often quite specific, so you might even say that footnotes can be obviated there (unless you're dealing with a very long and detailed article e.g. Ketuanan Melayu). Often a few books, or selected chapters from those books, can cover much of the article's content. Let's not rush to emphasise this aspect of the FA criteria in reviewing old FAs, although we should always keep it in the back of our heads. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about a poorly-written or inadequately comprehensive FA than one lacking a few footnotes. Johnleemk | Talk 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that eventually FA without inline citations must go, but hopefully their creators will fix them. I think more then half of my FAs have no inline cits - I'll get on fixing them. Leaving some template on talk, preferably about FAR with links to comments here - ones that hopefully will have other ideas how to improve the article besides just adding i.c's - would be the best solution, I feel.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving WP:FARC Here
Why aren't the nominations currently at WP:FARC moved to the featured article removal candidate section on this page? It would be nice to get some fresh eyes looking at the nominations instead of just those that happen upon the talk pages of those nominated for removal. joturn e r 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point - I have moved all the remaining FARC nominations to the major review section here. Raul654 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, why not move them to the FARC section? --mav 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see them reviewed and brought up to spec, if possible. Think of it as FAR's first test. Raul654 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I have rewritten some of the instructions at the top, because they were incredibly wordy and very process-heavy. Raul654 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

More general reviews of changes to Featured Articles
Now that this page is being revived, I would like to point out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. What I want to ask is whether there any way to integrate into this process of 'reviewing featured articles', a way for people who substantially edit a featured article (ie. after it has attained featured article status), to submit it here for review and approval, as a way to ensure that the changes meet FA criteria?

An important effect of this would be to encourage continual improvement and updating of featured articles, and to recognise that this takes place, and to pass both positive and negative critical comment. At the moment, this page seems designed mostly to prevent the decay of featured articles, and I feel that there is the possibility of encouraging the opposite processs - the continual improvement of featured articles. This would also spread 'best practice' techniques on how to continue polishing and improving a featured article.

Does this all sound like a good idea? Carcharoth 11:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Minor Review section can handle this. When first drafted I had the sentence "this is also the place for people who have edited an article after an FA to make sure they are on the right track" (something like that). You might when posting there present the link immediately after promotion and the present version with the question "Have I improved this?" Marskell 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Informing initial nominators
I know people are rightly concerned about instruction creep and forcing people to jump through too many hoops to nominate, but is it sensible to have a sentence like "if nominating for a Major review please consider informing the user who originally nominated for FAC (if they appear to be active)"? The obvious rejoinder would be "they should have it on their watchlist anyway" but you never know. Things get missed but the little orange message bar often prompts people to take action. I think it especially important considering the original nominators are the people most likely to know what is what in introducing in-line cites to match the references listed. Marskell 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a reasonable change to me. I've missed these things occasionally (a tide of edits to the talk page of an article can camouflage things, and when you are pressed for time, it doesn't make sense to visit each individual talk page to check for anything interesting other than something the RC patrollers dug up), and it's always been a very unpleasant annoyance to see lengthy discussion at the FARC nom without having been involved. Johnleemk | Talk 12:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Time recommended for minor reviews
Does anyone object if the wording is changed to "one to two weeks"? One week doesn't seem long enough, given that the key players might not be around all of the time. Tony 03:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I went out of my way to remove the explicit time lengths - it's something much better left up to individual discretion.


 * I didn't realise that it had been removed; good. Tony 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, why are explicit time lenghts worse? By not specifying time lengths we create ambiguity which leads to trivial arguments of how much time an article should be left to review. Interpretation of the rules/guidelines should not be encouraged, these should be specific although exceptions may be allowed. I agree that 1 week is not enough but a time frame (2 weeks in my opinion) should be specified. Joelito (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very confusing, that there are no time length guidelines mentioned. I hesitate to vote quickly on a FARC, in the hope that the article may improve.  Will a FARC more or less continue to last about two weeks?  I do think some guidelines would be helpful, even if not strictly adhered to.  Leaving it up to individual discretion opens an avenue for criticism (an editor can claim not enough time was left, or they didn't know how much time they had ...). Sandy 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we don't have to hit people over the head with rules but a simple note on time is sensible. I just placed "about two weeks" back into the instructions for major reviews. Marskell 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why "about"? That's still ambiguous. Just say two. Administrators should know that if 2 weeks have passed and discussions/changes are ongoing then the FAR should be given more time.Joelito (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving Featured Article Removal Candidate Subpages
I'd like to suggest moving the featured article removal candidates (FARC) back to being under Featured article removal candidates (i.e. not back to a page called Featured article removal candidates, but rather to pages similar to Featured article removal candidates/Batman; visually, this page would look exactly the same). The reason for this is that the template links to subpages of Featured article removal candidates. Changing the template so it links to Featured article review subpages would not be feasible as almost all former featured articles (with the exception of Hugo Chávez) have their FARC pages under Featured article removal candidates. Theoretically, we could also solve the problem by creating redirects for every subpage or move all the old FARCs to subpages of Featured article review. But remember I said theoretically; those obviously aren't good ideas. joturn e r 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to make a new template for future articles. All the old FARCs will link properly with the old template and later removals can take the new template. Having two pages will divide people's attention. Marskell 09:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK: for new ones. We won't need to start using this for a couple of weeks. Marskell 09:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you edited my post, Marskell, but I disagree with making a new template to solve the problem. joturn e r 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Edited your post where? That link just shows me making a comment unless I'm missing something.| What's wrong with a new template? Seems simple enough. Marskell 09:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Erk, I see in the next revision I did accidentally edit your post. I was doing a cut and paste to get the syntax for noting the new template. Sorry. Marskell 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did the first move from major review to FARC, the Hero of Belarus per the request of the main writer Zscout370, the major review is unlikely to be fixed. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If we move everything early then the process seems irrelevant. Marskell 09:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving from Major review to FARC
Space race is the first due to go down from Major review to FARC. I think we make two level three headlines to distinguish the commentary of the Major review from that of the FARC period? Marskell 09:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Asperger whacked out the Table of Contents
I can't figure out what happened to the TOC when Asperger was added, or how to fix it. Can someone see what happened to the hierarchy? I don't want to comment on Asperger's until I'm sure it's in the right place. Sandy 14:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Fixed now. Can't understand why it was showing as 3. before, with other major reviews listed under it. Sandy 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On a side note, the pace of FAR noms has been pretty dramatic--about one a day. The TOC is getting rather large. Marskell 15:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Templates, archiving
I have made new templates for future use when closing in future and placed a note at the top here. The old templates need to remain as they are so pages under the former process link properly. Archives for old FARCs are all caught up. I think (fingers crossed) that everything should work properly now. Marskell 09:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Major review time frame
I don't like the two week deadline for major reviews. I think that major reviews should stay open as long as significant article improvements are being made, as moving an article to FARC will halt the improvement process and turn the review into a vote.  Pagra shtak  13:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's been much discussion about this. The two contrary concerns are a) leaving enough time to get work done and b) creating a sense of urgency so that things don't get left here for months as was the case previously. It also needs to be systematic and scaleable--do we move Hero of Belarus down after fourteen days and leave Coca-Cola up for thirty? I don't feel the move will "halt the improvement process" (at least that wasn't the intention); once it gets to the FARC section you're perfectly free to continue to edit and to note "Keep + I've done some work on it". Re the Zelda page you've worked on, I actually contacted the nominator and asked him to look at it again. Marskell 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems that if editors are committed to fixing an article, that becomes apparent pretty early on. RN and I have been prodding the editors of Asperger syndrome to make the necessary changes, giving them many examples of the work needed, doing some of the work for them so they can see what work is needed -- but it's been clear from early on that no regular editor intends to take on the work.  In a week, there's been no movement on the article, and the article could easily be fixed in two weeks.  They seem more interested in keeping the unencyclopedic content, which they are more involved with.   The whole discussion about stable versions comes to mind, because a revert to an outdated older version would be better for the article now.  Sandy 11:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to FARC articles for which little interest in improvement is generated by their placement in the minor or major review list. Tony 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section
Could we add an additional section to this page. It's called "Specific issues" and will have different subsections ("Insufficient lead", "lack of citation", "needs an infobox"...). It will serve as a fragmentation of the FA review process, making it more efficient and rapid. Open for comments. CG 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An additional section or the replacement of the ones we have? You mean, if lack of citations were the issue it would be placed under a section so titled? Marskell 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we can keep "minor review" for a general review. CG 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's not make the structure any more complex than it is now. Tony 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. I think more fragmentation may decrease how much the page gets browsed which is already a concern. Plus many of the criteria concerns are interwoven and it doesn't make sense to treat them separately. Marskell 09:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Judge and executioner
We shouldn't be both, so can someone who hasn't made a vote-like comment at Space Race close it tomorrow? Archive is simple enough, template at top of this page, -1 on FAs, move it from that page to Former FA. Marskell 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. Raul654 18:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can also do it since I was going to do it today but I wanted to allow a full 2 weeks. Joelito (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By committee then ;). Per our discussions the two weeks is not hard and fast. This one isn't moving though. Marskell 21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a general principle, I believe that the person who closes off should retain a degree of distance from the review process. Tony 08:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True. I have to agree with you here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am closing FARs in which I have not participated. When/if I participate I will not close the nomination. Joelito (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joel: I like the commitment to avoiding conflict of interest, including any possible appearance of it. If all regulars here participate in a review, one could always ask Raul or someone else to close off a nomination. Tony 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Silence
Having never visited these realms before, I find them so silent my edits almost echo. (Pun there, for you PHP types.) Supposing a FAR just gets ignored. Is that enough to suppose it can to FARC to be ignored further after which it is delisted facing no opposition to doing so? Or would the reverse prevail? -Splash - tk 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, the reverse. If you look at the old FARC archives, reviews that receive virtually no commentary are kept. Wigwag (which I commented on) wasn't removed (because basically no one else commented) though it should be. While I may disagree with the result of that particular example, the process is sound: in the absence of commentary the status quo holds (in this case, keep FA) as it does with most Wiki processes.


 * That said, this particular process (with review and removal together) is quite young. As others close things there may be more debate about what the unofficial criteria are.


 * I'd say finally that this page isn't that silent (maybe you're looking for splashes every where you go ;). Having watched it since the merger, some actual review and re-working have been done on pages here. Of course, it will always be easier to look for two seconds and note remove per X and forget it, than it will be to actually edit the page. Don't know what will solve that. Marskell 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, in places like AfD an unchallenged nomination would either be deleted or relisted by most admins. It would not be found as a keep, save by a certain subset of people. It seems rather silly that someone could raise a long litany of problems in an article and see it retain featured status despite nothing have been done about it! -Splash - tk 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "In...AfD an unchallenged nomination would...be deleted". Really'? Literally, if no one else commented? Relisted for sure (as I've seen you do many times) but I've never seen a 1-0 delete (though I guess PROD amounts to that).


 * That said, perhaps you're kicking off the debate. I do know what you mean. When I looked at Jim Henson I was tempted to delist it on the spot--but who knows, maybe a miracle worker will arrive. No one is hurting if it requires a month to remove the star.


 * And this page is still small enough that it can be treated case-by-case. If no one else comments on Jim Henson and one of the half-dozen people who have congregated here decides to delist it after the time is up I don't think there will be any shouting and yelling. But no (IMO) a nomination sans commentary should not be enough to delist, all other things being equal. I don't think that an odd choice at all. Marskell 22:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On the AfD point, yes, I would generally relist (or delete if looking at the article I knew it to be a slam-dunk that got missed somehow) but I wouldn't close it as "no change", which is what the equivalent here would amount to. There is also the point that, when evaluating an AfD debate, one would generally wish to take the nominator's comment into account, generally on the delete side. The only really compelling reason to have a boundary condition where the nominator is overruled when they are the only participant is the avoidance of bad-faith nominations and the assumption that articles should be retained unless there is a good reason to delete them.
 * The reverse ought (imo) to be true for FAs. Unless an article demonstrates that it is still an FA (or the nominator is obviously being silly) it shouldn't retain that status out of what amounts to apathy, given particularly that at least one person has taken the time to evaluate it and write a (hopefully) detailed nomination statement. This isn't a deletion, or a loss of content or anything like that: it's the upholding of the highest standards that articles get held to and if noone challenges a good-faith assertion that "X is rubbish by today's standards" then probably that's enough to settle the question. Some fresh work on the articel can always precede a new FA nomination which should be a breeze if something actually did go wrong with the FARC evaluation. (Disclaimer: I recently put Lord Chancellor in the Major section; it's been silent so far, and is a terrifically poor FA, thus my query.) -Splash - tk 11:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we need to recruit more people to gather wider concensus. Maybe a notice on the community portal? Joelito (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Recruit away! Obviously Splash's problem would be solved if one or two more people commented. Marskell 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a notice on the Community portal with the intent of recruiting more reviewers. Joelito (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to vote on articles in territories I'm completely unfamiliar with, and I wait until the end of the two weeks to see if any changes or improvements have occurred. I posted a note on WP:MCOTW regarding AS, and did get two more editors involved in the AS article, but haven't seen them here. Sandy 17:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing status without commentary
Per Splash's concern above—that FA status shouldn't be kept for poor articles just because nobody has commented—how about this informal rule:


 * An article may be removed based only on the nominator's recommendation after the full period if the outstanding concern is a lack of in-line citations (2c).
 * If the concern is writing quality, comprehensiveness, POV etc. it shouldn't be removed if no one has commented or if the comments are only very cursory.

This allows us to continue to gradually remove the uncited FAs and not have them "accidentally" kept due to lack of commentary. Marskell 09:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in principle, but defining "cursory" might lead to arguments. What about: "If the nomination is on the basis of another FA criterion, the article should not be removed unless there are comments concerning its failure to meet that criterion, including supporting reasoning and/or examples." Tony 14:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems fair enough. I wasn't thinking we'd actually post this on the page, just have it here as a general rule given that closing is being done by a handful of people rather than just one as at FAC. Marskell 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Procedural question
Since this process is still fairly new, and most nominations have come from regular contributors here, I want to raise a concern about a recent nom for review. FAR is not dispute resolution. Shouldn't requests focus on the article, giving specifics about the current status of the article, rather than detailing past edits, edit wars, and perceived wrongdoings of past editors (except to the extent necessary to show instability)? I am concerned that the review will degenerate into personal conflicts when an article is placed for review in a way that focuses on the editors involved and the past edits, rather than the specific issues with the current article content. Should we ask an editor to resubmit the review? For example, these statements should be backed with examples, while the details about specific editors make it appear that the review is being asked to resolve conflicts between editors: I am concerned that FAR not become a place for dispute resolution, this nomination reads like a request to resolve a problem between editors, and I'm wondering if we should request that it be resubmitted with focus on the article content rather than past edits and editors. Should we ask that noms focus on the article, and not point fingers at editors? Experienced editors here have probably encountered these issues with the old FARC procedure, but I'm still fairly new to Wiki. Since the new process is a much longer one, my thinking is that we want to avoid a month of discussion that involves editor conflicts rather than focus on content. Sandy 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the passages are long-winded or tangential  No example given, yet detailed examples of conflicts between editors are provided.
 * Some of the sources that remain are not peer-reviewed, are secondary sources that do not use primary sources themselves, are not independent, and have conflict of interest in representing the issues they discuss, violating reliable sources guidelines. No example, yet detailed information about specific editors is given.
 * 14 pages of archives dealing with many POV objections that have been resolved/ignored/dismissed to various degrees.  No example given.
 *  to address these and other issues have largely been ignored or dismissed by editors, No example given.

Getting people to improve articles
I have a growing concern with the FAR process. I have noticed that while some articles get worked on, others are just left unattended. I have begun to wonder if there is something we can do to encourage the improvement of reviewed articles. Should we leave messages on talk pages enumerating the reasons for the article review and maybe a link to the discussion (I know the link can be found at FAR)? Should we leave messages on the main contributor's talk pages? Should we care if the contributors don't? Joelito (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an easy way to bring reviews to the attention of more editors would be to also list them at the appropriate WikiProjects. Jkelly 17:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a problem, but I think adressing respective Wikiprojects will be helpful. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is the best way then we need a list of WikiProjects related to the following categories: Art, architecture, and archaeology · Awards and decorations · Biology and medicine · Business, economics, and finance · Chemistry and mineralogy · Computing · Culture and society · Education · Engineering and technology · Food and drink · Geography and places · Geology, geophysics, and meteorology · History · Language and linguistics · Law · Literature · Mathematics · Media · Music · Philosophy · Physics and astronomy · Politics and government · Psychology · Religion and mysticism · Royalty, nobility, and heraldry · Sport and games · Transport · War. Joelito (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The silence here isn't necessarily indicative of work on the article (for example, Asperger syndrome saw major improvements, albeit maybe not enough to pass FAR, but only one of the editors working on the article has bothered to comment here so far). I posted messages to three four contributors of Race, and have also raised the FAR on the WikiProject for Medicine, WP:MCOTW (in fact, I've been ringing bells on MCOTW for several weeks, with no input).  If they don't pitch in, maybe they don't care?  Also, on new review nominations, I'm asking each nominator if interested parties or original author have been contacted.  My suspicion is that current editors don't want to get involved in salvaging someone else's old work: the response I've gotten from the medical project has been indifference.  Sandy 18:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point, Sandy. And it is understandable (sort of) move. For instance, backsourcing an article to get inline citations is kinda complicated. Maybe one should insist (i.e. spam) them more. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I may have "spammed" on the AS article, and I even dug in to try to fix it myself, which only served to get me into very hot water :-) I'm going to work on the "spam 'em" angle on a few new reviews, but if we find current editors just aren't interested in salvaging old work ... ... maybe it is what it is.  Some of the AS folks didn't want a medically-referenced article:  they liked their original research :-)  Sandy 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another problem: maybe we don't even get noticed? Most FAs have a series of templates at the top of the talk page (past peer reviews, good articles, etc.). Maybe our template doesn't even get noticed. Talk:Race has six boxes at the top of the talk page. Can we change the background color of the review template, or do something to make it stand out? Sandy 18:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a template we can use for notifying the WikiProjects or original authors? I was concerned that the wording I chose on my own would put them on the defensive. Sandy 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no template and I believe there shouldn't be one. A simple note on the project's talk page should be sufficient. Something along these lines: "Insert article here is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality." Joelito (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks! Sandy 20:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the medicine people listened: now we have to see if they use it. WikiProject Medicine/Featured articles review. Sandy 23:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Beginning list of WikiProjects
Regional notice boards

(Please add WikiProjects under each category: when there's a Portal to several projects, I'll list it instead)
 * Art, architecture, and archaeology
 * Portal:Arts
 * WikiProject Arts
 * WikiProject American Animation
 * WikiProject Anime and manga
 * WikiProject Digimon Systems Update
 * List of Performing Arts and Broadcasting Projects
 * List of Visual and plastic arts Projects, and Architecture
 * WikiProject Archaeology


 * Awards and decorations
 * Biology and medicine
 * List of biology projects
 * List of Health Sciences Projects


 * Business, economics, and finance
 * List of Business and Economics Projects


 * Chemistry and mineralogy
 * List of Chemistry and mineralogy projects


 * Computing
 * List of computing projects


 * Culture and society
 * Portal:Culture lists a couple of areas
 * List of Ethnicity projects
 * List of Society WikiProjects


 * Education
 * List of Education Projects


 * Engineering and technology
 * Technology Wiki Projects


 * Food and drink
 * List of Food and drink projects


 * Geography and places
 * Geographical Wiki Projects
 * List of Geography Projects
 * List of Country Projects


 * Geology, geophysics, and meteorology
 * List of Geosciences Projects


 * History
 * List of History Projects


 * Language and linguistics
 * List of Language and communication projects


 * Law
 * List of Law Projects


 * Literature
 * Portal:Literature lists numerous WikiProjects, very specialized


 * Mathematics
 * WikiProject Mathematics


 * Media
 * List of Mass Media Projects


 * Music
 * Portal:Music lists numerous WikiProjects, specialized


 * Philosophy
 * List of Philosophy and Logic Projects


 * Physics and astronomy
 * List of Physics projects
 * List of Astronomy projects


 * Politics and government
 * List of Politics and government Projects


 * Psychology
 * WikiProject Psychology


 * Religion and mysticism
 * List of Religion Projects


 * Royalty, nobility, and heraldry
 * WikiProject Peerage


 * Sport and games
 * List of Recreation Projects


 * Transport
 * List of transportation projects


 * War
 * WP:MILHIST, the only and true :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Other
 * Category:WikiProjects

I can't find Engineering or Awards. Sandy 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK there is no Wproject for Awards and Decorations :( A poll to create such a Task Force for Military decorations was made at WP:MILHIST but never made it because of lack of editors. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a nice list at List of WikiProjects. It may be outdates but should give an idea. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I completed most of the list from there. Sandy 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that list is outdated. I see it getting updated pretty often and it does seem quite comprehensive. If by chance, a few projects mentioned here are not already mentioned there, we could just update that list instead of creating a separate list here -- Lost 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that list is that it is full of inactive projects. The purpose is to list only the projects that collaborate with our efforts. Joelito (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So I should go back through all of them that come from the list Grafikm gave me, and delete/consolidate to include only active projects? Other editors, please feel free to edit my list above - it's just a start.  Let me know how to improve it, or we can ditch it, whatever works.  Sandy 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think we should leave the list as is. Once we start interacting with the projects we list/delist those that collaborate/ignore us. Joelito (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I put a question on the topic above: do we have a template for notifying the Projects? Sandy 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? We don't need the list of Projects: it's easy to find who "claims" the FA with "What links here", and much faster, too! Sandy 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Review after major rewrite?
Is there any place on Wikipedia for reviewing a Featured Article that has recently undergone a major rewrite, but where there are not yet any specific objections to the article's content or to its FA status?

In particular, what of an article that undergoes extensive revisions shortly after becoming Featured, where feedback is needed to ensure that the editors who originally supported it will still support it now that it's been revised? In this example (Final Fantasy X), the editors of the article itself agree that the changes are much-needed improvements, but it is very uncertain that the Peer Reviewers or FAC voters would have felt that way, so outside feedback is needed. Especially since the article is scheduled to appear on the main page in three days.

(Such feedback would also be valuable for providing more information on areas to improve and cleanup further; that is the main benefit, in fact, I am very unconcerned about whether the article remains an FA or not.) -Silence 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that fits the description of Minor Review: others may differ.  Sandy 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just took a quick look at the nomination; no objections to the story length. Moreover, featured article review is normally used to give articles a prose boost &mdash; it isn't normally used in a case where the prose is actually improved. I don't think it's an issue that requires a review, unless things start to get out of hand (which is unlikely, since the article has been stable except for the recent expansion of the story section). &mdash; Deckill e r 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I take that back, there was one objection, but it was when the article's coverage of the plot was unbalanced (I.E. ten paragraphs on one event, and nothing on other key arcs). A minor review may not be a bad idea, but it might be best to wait until after the page is featured on the main page so that it can get a wider opinion. &mdash; Deckill e r 21:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My concern is that as the article has undergone a major, systematic update 3 days before it will appear on the main page, there may not have been given enough time to bring it in accordance with Wikipedia's standards, as other editors may see them. For example, no less than 5 new fair-use images have been added to the article, a brand-new, page-long section ("Mythology") has been added, a new organizational framework has been implemented for the story-related sections (placing them all under an oversection called "Story and setting"), and, most of all, the "Plot" section has been just about completely rewritten, with some extraneous details removed and a fair number of highly significant details added. I do not think that this necessarily means the article should have its FA status revoked (on the contrary, I think it's in much better shape than it was when it became an FA), but I do think that it merits in-depth review by a larger body of editors before we feature it on the main page. Also, at least another week or so to ensure stability would be wise, in my view. -Silence 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am split both ways, and not in a biased sort of way. In the past, I've witnessed many featured articles go through extensive rewrites before being featured on the main page (without a delay). On the other hand, delaying the article's main page debut a couple weeks (provided that Raul promises to open up the next available slot when the review is over) earlier won't upset anyone. Plus, I am interested in seeing how Tony wants to handle 2a in this situation (so I can use the criticism for the FF8 FA push). The other worry is that we may be promoting inclusionist versus deletionist debates for all featured articles slated to appear on the main page, which may turn off some editors. What does everyone else think? &mdash; Deckill e r 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Fine with me. Raul is generally pretty reasonable, and I'm sure some of the primary editors won't get upset over a review, even at this stage. &mdash; Deckill e r 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Right whale, stupid question
I'm starting down the list, leaving Project messages. I left a talk message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mammals about Right whale. Do I also leave one at WikiProject Marine Life, even though it's not a fish? ... Sandy 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think marine life is about anything that lives in the sea, not just fish :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but I was afraid they'd come back to me and say, "don't ya know a whale's a mammal"? :-) Their project page talks a lot about fish ... oh, well, what have I got to lose? Sandy 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Simplifying the FAR/C process?
Dear colleagues

After a little experience with the new system, the issue of whether articles can be moved directly from minor review to FARC has come up in relation to Phishing. Tim Marskell and I discussed this a little while ago, and I think we concluded that it's OK to do so; otherwise the whole process could take six weeks to delist an article, which he feels is too long.

This brings me to a more basic question: should the minor and major review lists be merged? One reason not to have the minor review process is that it may act as a disincentive to contributors to take up the spade and improve the article ("Oh, just a minor tweak will do it; there's only a little bit to do; someone else can do it"). The system would be simpler if binary rather than ternary, and those who run the room (seems to be you, Tim, Joel and I at the moment) would find it a little easier to keep track of time issues. I'm copying this text to the others, and to the FAR discussion page.

I'd like to make further suggestions:

1. Tuf-Kat's suggestion (above) that the FAR template be placed at the bottom of a nominated article's talk page is a good one, IMV. Should this be part of the instructions?

2. Should there be a different template for minor/major review from that for FARC, to be changed if/when an article is moved from review into FARC? If not, should there be a mandatory notification on the article's talk page?

Here's the current text, and below it my suggested modification to the text at the top. Note that the current text is much narrower in scope, and provides no instructions for moving from review to FARC.

EXISTING TEXT:

PROPOSED TEXT:

We might consider adding instructions on how to close a review and how to close a FARC. I know that it's going to make for a rather large lead, but I think it's better to have an open, transparent process. How to close a FARC was explicated on the FARC talk page, anyway, in its dying days.

Your comments on this proposed text will be appreciated: Tony 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The FAR merge is an excellent idea; it has my full support. Merging the FAR categories forces editors to improve the article drastically in lieu of sitting around during a "minor review". Additionally, the merge will reduce the extended lifespan of the FAR/FARC, making the entire process flow smoothly. &mdash; Deckill e r 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes to moving from Minor direct to FARC. Yes to combining Minor and Major review as one. Yes to template at bottom of page and in instructions. No to a different template for review and FARC, since most of them are moving to FARC anyway, and that will be more work. Notification now is fine. Under Number 6, consider notifying any WikiProjects. Sandy 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm on the fence with the idea of creating different templates for review and FARC. With the minor and major reviews merged, there's likely to be a higher percentage of FAs avoiding FARC. On the other hand, it may complicate matters and confuse some editors. &mdash; Deckill e r 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merging minor ad major. Moving from minor to FARC is a bit drastic. If the article deserves to be on FARC then its problems were not minor. However, by merging minor and major reviews this problem will can be avoided.

Having a different template is a bad idea, when it's up for FARC we can leave a note on the talk page. Joelito (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've responded to the criticisms of the separate template by removing reference to to: now there's reference to one template only . Tony 03:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A minor point: why at the bottom of the page? The existing practice seems to be that all of the shiny banner templates go at the top (if for no other reason than to decrease the chances of their being dragged into some archive, never to be seen again). Kirill Lokshin 04:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(Somewhat reluctant) support to merging Minor and Major Reviews. I like having the Minor Review section to encourage preventive work, but I think the benefits of a unified review section outweigh it. Strong oppose to multiple templates &mdash; it's instruction creep and unnecessary extra work. Strong oppose to placing the FAR template at the bottom of the talk page. It needs to be up top with the other templates, that's where anyone who knows about talk page templates will be expecting it.  Pagra shtak  06:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But, as I think you probably feel too, contributors are probably not much motivated by the "minor" term. In view of the comments about the location of the template (bottom of page), I've changed it to read "the top of the page" . Tony 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm rather reluctant as well, though I support it if it makes the page more efficient. One principal point had been that you should be welcome to nominate something here even if you don't think it should be removed. I wonder if this leads us closer to "all roads lead to FARC."


 * Against two templates per instruction creep. Current template is fine with recent tweaks IMO. I also do not believe we should place closing instructions on the main page; we should work out informal consensus here. Marskell 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your feedback. I propose to paste in the new text tomorrow, unless someone objects. I've added a sentence at the top to encourage contributors to nominate articles for FAR without feeling that they'll automatically proceed to FARC; I've removed reference to separate FAR/FARC templates, and to posting the template at the bottom of talk pages. I agree that instructions for closing should not appear.

Tony 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Sandy 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)