Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 12

Featured article process
At WT:TFA/R there is a discussion regarding the featured article process and its future. --Rschen7754 10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

General references
Are general references instead of references acceptable in FAs? I have recently raised this matter at Talk:Witold Lutosławski, on the matter of. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Inline referencing is required for all featured articles per the featured article criteria. For book-length references, page numbers are also required per current FAC consensus. I see that the article has in the past had in-line referencing, which was removed (!?!?!?), so it shouldn't be difficult to bring the article back up to featured quality. If the main editor of the article in question continues to remove valid in-line referencing, the options would seem to be either dispute resolution (if you're interesting in keeping the article at featured status) or delisting. Dana boomer (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Closes
Gimmebot has been inactive for a couple of weeks, affecting the closing of FACs and FARs. I used to manually close both in the bot's absence, and have just taken care of the closed FACs since 31 January; would y'all like me to handle the closed FARs as well? Maralia (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maralia, it would be fantastic if you wouldn't mind doing to closing for these. I think there are only a couple that have been closed so far this month... I wouldn't have the first idea of where to start, so that you SO much for offering! Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. I'm too distracted for this type of work tonight, but I will take care of them tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed the two FARs that ended since January 31. While doing so, I noticed there is an extra article in Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates; looks like Jurassic Park (film) is still tagged although the nominator withdrew it. Don't know if it matters, but thought I would point it out. In any case, I will try to keep an eye on FARs in need of technical closing—sure hope we get a bot back soon though! Maralia (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Demoting FAs to GAs
There's a discussion here which might be of interest. To sum up, giving FAR reviewers the option to demote an FA directly to GA (if they fulfil the criteria of course) instead of only to "nothing" would create more GAs, which is not exactly a bad thing. There are not enough GA reviewers, so going to GAR again after a former GA is demoted from FA just drags things out in endless bureaucracy (which is off-putting to most writers), and therefore we would swap two flies with one bash with this proposal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, the situation you're anticipating is having a recent FA (which is also a recent GA) delisted at FAR. You want to avoid having to go through the GA process again, to maximize the number of GAs without adding to the workload there, and also to reduce the overall process workload on nominators (and perhaps soften the stigma of demotion) in a situation where a delisted FA is still GA-quality. My comments:
 * Yours is an extremely unusual set of circumstances. Articles delisted these days most typically were promoted years ago (think 2006-2009); only maybe half ever had GA status; and those that were GA often acquired the status in the early days of the project, when standards were significantly lower. For these reasons, the typical delisted FA is unlikely to meet GA standards.
 * It seems unlikely that WP:GA would support anyone bestowing GA status on an article without performing/documenting a standard GA review.
 * As to softening the blow: this is a noble goal and should always be a factor in process design, but in my experience delisted articles almost never have a main editor who's still active. (Those with an active main editor are much more likely to be improved and kept at FAR.)
 * For these reasons, I don't think this is likely to gain much traction as a formal process change. That being said, nothing would prevent a FAR reviewer (or anyone else) from going on to perform a normal GA review of a delisted article. Maralia (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned several times, no, the reason I got this idea is the Emu article, which I had no hand in promoting. But I've been puzzled by the fact that it was stripped of any status, when it could just as well had been demoted directly to GA, with very few tweaks. As is, it would have to go through a new GA review, and that just seems like a waste of reviewer time to me, especially since everyone is complaining about the lack of reviewers. If a FAR reviewer had the option to demote them to GA (if they found it reached the criteria) instead of nothing, we would save the manpower. And no, the FAR reviewer would not have to keep the GA criteria in mind ("work harder", as some have claimed), because these are already inherent in the FA criteria. My own article, which I only mentioned as a hypothetical case, most likely won't be delisted even during FAR, as the "problems" with it are not even mentioned in the FA criteria, so it is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maralia sounds right to me. I think quite a few delisted FAs would not meet GA standard as they are - some have not met the DYK one ref per para standard. I know the FA requirements, but not the GA ones, & I should not I think be trusted to judge whether they are met (I have have to say they've always seemed wildly variable by reviewer to me, but maybe I'm missing something). Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know both criteria very well, and I'm surprised that so many (who are unfamiliar) think they are somehow different. They aren't. GA criteria are just laxer versions of the FAc riteria, and are therefore inherent in them. And again, no one is saying a failed FA should automatically become a GA, only if the reviewers think it reaches the criteria. And there are many cases where an article is improved enough during the FAR process to a point where it reaches GA, but not yet FA, status. These are the cases where it could be promoted, if no further work is done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sorry for misunderstanding; it's been difficult to follow four threads spread across three pages. Are you proposing bestowing GA status without recording a formal GA review? If so, does WP:GA support this? Doesn't seem like emu—which was never a GA, and became an FA seven years ago—would be the ideal case for such. Maralia (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that since the GA criteria are inherent in the FA criteria, a FAR review is already a GA review, and the reviewer would easily be able to judge whether the article in question reached the GA criteria, but not the FA criteria. And it would not take any more work (and would merely be optional). If judged to fall short of FA, but not GA, it could then be demoted straight to GA instead of to nothing (whether it was formerly a GA or not). If only a few issues would be a hindrance to GA status, the FAR reviewer could proclaim this, and someone could then fix those issues. And there seems to be many supporters of the idea so far, but I've screwed up the proposal by also including another proposal in the same thread (as well as proposing it on three separate pages), so I will make a new, more concise version at village pump policy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That helps; I understand your proposal better now, but I still think it would require more changes at FAR than you seem to be anticipating. A FAR review that identifies enough significant issues to demote an article does not necessarily identify all issues, which would be necessary in order to evaluate it for GA. Maralia (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that, which is why I mentioned it should be optional. If the reviewer had reviewed the article thoroughly enough to be able to judge, why prevent the reviewer from promoting it to GA instead? Right now, the reviewer does not even have that option, which seems odd, as many FAs are former GAs, and many still reach the GA criteria. So if anyone wonders if it is only optional, why implement it at all? Well, I think the GA backlog speaks for itself. Making the process a little smoother, or creating the possibility for it, is not a bad thing. Then you might say "why hand the GAR burden to the FAR reviews?" By the same token, the FAR reviewer negates the previous work of a GA reviewer (if the FA is a former GA), so why not give the possibility to retain the GA status? FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorization as part of FA to avoid ghettoization
Recently, Maya Angelou was a featured article, but on the day it was on the front page, it was missing several important categories per our categorization guidelines. See this diff, for what was missing: for example, Category:20th-century writers, Category:American poets, Category:African-American poets and Category:Writers from Arkansas -- all resulted in a form of ghettoization. I'm not familiar with the FA process and this is not intended as an affront to the great work done on the Maya Angelou article, but due to the recent brouhaha, the specific categories she was in (or wasn't in, rather) was the subject of accusations of sexism in the press:.

Without opining on the correctness of that article, I would nonetheless propose that a better review of categorization guidelines per WP:EGRS (which itself needs help) become part of the FA process, and that we *always* ensure that we don't ghettoize - especially our featured articles. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * First - this isn't the proper place for this - it'd be at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. Second, speaking as a editor of many FAs... the whole categorization system sucks ... well, we won't say what it sucks, but it's not pleasant. I would oppose requiring that until the category system is revamped to not be the product of a bunch of folks who impose arcane rules and don't seem to grasp what they are working for. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Your tone is a bit... hmmm... I guess I'm not sure, what specifically do you disagree with in the current categorization guidelines? I'm frankly not a fan either, but if you have been reading any press recently, we've been grilled for ghettoizing women with our categorizations (by my count, Maya was ghettoized in 5 ways), so wouldn't a first step be, stop doing that for FAs? I'd be happy to help explain a methodology (like the one I used do de-ghettoize Maya Angelou). Anyway, I moved my comment to the other forum, cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * the guidelines make no sense and are contradictory ... we're only supposed to categorize "important" points, but I constantly see folks putting in the most obscure cats that could possibly apply to folks. I've read the press reports. First .. you need to get the guidelines evenly and well set up. It's not fair to expect folks to hold to some guideline when you're in the process of reworking it and it's subject to controversy. (Yes, I'm talking about the guidelines on Gender/Ethniicity/etc that's currently in a state of flux on the talk page...). Get everyone to agree to what the category system is and what it should do, then see about making it mandatory at FA. We went through this in the past with ALT text - folks imposed it at FA before they had a good guideline on what ALT text should be... it was a disaster. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a band-aid approach might work then. E.g., overcategorize for now, then phase back once the cats discussion settles. However, attention is on us *now* - we can't issue another FA that ghettoizes someone.
 * As mentioned, I don't know the FA process - but I'm just thinking, why not avoid more bad press? We will never be critiqued for having too many cats - for example, Maya should be part of African-American women poets, African-American poets, American women poets, and American poets. Is anyone going to complain if she is in all of those? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing the star after delisting
I noticed that Kingdom of Makuria's FAR ended in delisting more than two weeks ago, but the article's star and talk page templates haven't changed. The same is true of some other recent FARs. The template that closes an FAR still indicates that User:GimmeBot will change the article to indicate that it's been stripped of its status, but GimmeBot hasn't run since January. Based on a glance at some other recent delisted FAs, it looks like the only articles that indicate their new status were manually changed. Will this function be transferred to a new bot, like the one that handles FACs now, or should editors just change the article templates manually? A. Parrot (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked the operator of the new FAC archiving bot if he'd be willing to extend its functions, but in the interim we'll need to manually update articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, somewhere in my userpage subpages is a list of the steps needed to remove (or retain) the star and update articlehistory ... it's a bit more complex than when the stars are added. Also, is this new "bot" (not sure who/what/where it is) also adding saved stars (articles that pass FAC) to articlehistory?  Also, is it closing and hatting FAR pages?  In the past, multiple editors did this work by hand (Maralia and myself and others), and with volume so low, doing it by hand shouldn't be too difficult.  I will try to locate the old info and post it here, but am severely short on time today.  In the event the new bot isn't able to get on this right away,  is the one to call.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, the starting place is User:SandyGeorgia/FA work, and at the bottom is a link to my sandbox where you/someone will have to go back in the history of my sandbox page to find that info ... Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Found that here, but from 2008, so someone will need to make sure it is still accurate. Done now, I think ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy, I'll take a look at that. The new bot is VoxelBot, run by Vacation9. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC proposing an adjustment to the governance of featured-article forums
Community input is welcome here. Tony  (talk)  11:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

RFCs on FA changes

 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates discussion leading to the two current RFCs
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates first one
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates first alternate
 * I suspect there will be other versions posted. Pumpkin Sky  talk  13:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
By accident, I just now happened upon Featured article review/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1; it was created in March but quickly shelved due to an ongoing discussion at the article's talk. The discussion has long since died out (the last edit was an isolated one in June), so could the review be reactivated? I've never heard of the incident before and have no stake (or opinion) about whether this should remain an FA or be demoted; I simply don't want to see the discussion fade with a whimper. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've deleted the FAR page, as if there was to be a new review, it would need to be restarted from scratch, with proper talk page notification, etc., and the nominator hasn't edited since April. Unfortunately, this is an article that gets a lot of people who are sure they know what the real story is, but can't provide reliable, third-party sources to back up their view. So, FARs get started without the proper procedure being followed, and without valid justification based on FA criteria. There seems to be a good community of editors who are interested in the article and quite active, and from what I have seen, they are more than willing to work with incoming editors who provide good sources, and to explain sourcing requirements to newbies without biting them. I don't have a stake in the article, and it's definitely not my area of expertise, but I definitely have some sympathy for editors who work in polarizing areas like this, although they obviously do it by choice. Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that deletion was an option. Thanks for resolving the issue!  Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Order of sections for city article
Is there a preferred order for sections in an article on a city? Does it matter which comes first, history, geography, demographics, etc? Thanks! JodyBtalk 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like WP:WikiProject Cities has some suggestions on the order for cities in various countries/regions, see this list of pages. I've never seen an official policy/guideline that states what order they have to be in. Unless there's a good reason not to, I'd say that the WP Cities order is probably a good way to go, as they've obviously put quite a bit of time and effort into creating the suggestions pages. Did you have any particular article in mind? Dana boomer (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the informaiton. I'll check it out. Actually, I'm trying to move one to GA status first but I figured that if I used FA ideas it would be better in the long run. My current project is Daphne, Alabama. JodyBtalk 04:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, in addition to checking out the WP Cities pages, I'd suggest looking at some of the existing featured articles in the Geography and places category. There is a fairly good cross-section of cities in there - everything from little hamlets to state/national capitals. Looking especially closely at those promoted in the last couple of years should give you a good idea of where to start with your article. Unfortunately, city articles have a tendency to accumulate quite a bit of cruft and trivia when they're not monitored closely, so I can't guarantee that the older articles are all up to speed...although that is part of what we're trying to fix with the review process :) Hope this helps, Dana boomer (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Are all articles eligible to be Featured someday?
That question is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. Please weigh in on the discussion there.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library seeks renewal (please comment)
The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:


 * Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
 * Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
 * New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
 * Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
 * Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
 * Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 12:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Visiting Scholar (please apply now)
Want to gain free access to a top research university's library so you can improve Wikipedia articles? Apply to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar!. George Mason University's position is now open: Application. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 15:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing reviews
User:Dana boomer, User:Nikkimaria: until we get a bot can you please not use Template:FARClosed and instead tag the top of the review page with for keeps and removed for removes. The closing template should be placed on the bottom. Your signature and the date will be added automatically. DrKiernan (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Greek to me
The archive box at the top of this page needs to be updated for Archive 11 to say "2012–" or something, but for the life of me, I can't find where to edit those descriptions. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's on the secret page. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found the key.  But will give it back to you so you can keep the archives updated! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

FAR longevity
Hello. I'm inclined to ask why some reviews opened five months ago are still running, even though there hasn't been any recent activity? For example, the last edit on Paul Kane was conducted on June 22, and the consensus is clearly established by now; same thing with Manila Metro Rail Transit System, where the last edit was on June 21. My second concern is why some articles aren't move to FARC when the typical two to three weeks had already passed?--Retrohead (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, can you reduce the waiting line by closing some of the review that had been inactive in a while?--Retrohead (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Retrohead, the reason for delays across the board is the same: lack of reviewers. We are reluctant to draw consensus from only one or two voices, so reviews languish in wait of additional reviewers. I will go through the page later this week to try to move things along, but in many cases there's very little I can do about the pace. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Featured article review/John Mayer/archive1 has been open since August. There are two (possibly three, depending on whether EddieHugh's commentary counts) votes to delist, no objections to delisting, and no effort to improve the article. How much longer should this stay open?  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

, I believe there is one FAR that can be closed, and at least another that can be sectioned. Since we can now put up three more WP:URFAs for the week, I'm hoping we can keep things already on the page moving. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is discouraging to "work" on this page when FARs are open for three months that could be closed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping template
Should FAR also have a Template:@FAR for notifications, similar to Template:@FAC and Template:@TFA? Just checking. GermanJoe (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so. We had something similar at MilHist because we had several coords and it saved individual notifications, I pinched the idea for FAC for the same reason, and it'll apply to FAR assuming the nominations for augmenting Nikki go through. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created an analogous version for FAR at Template:@FAR (if used sparingly, it will hopefully not interfere with the number of templates in transclusions). Note: the receiver list needs to be updated, once the new team members proposal is "formally" closed (the same goes for the FAC coordinator list at @FAC). GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: New FAR coordinator

 * Split from ongoing discussion above:

User:Laser brain, I hope that this means that you are willing to act as a coordinator. I'd like to move forward with the appointment of a new FAR coordinator without waiting for or arranging an RFC on the issue, both to maintain momentum and avoid a long debate. As you are a previous coordinator anyway and this page is quiet, I think in your case and at this page a direct appointment by us (the community of editors watching this page) is going to be uncontroversial. So, I'd like to suggest that we thank User:Dana boomer for doing an excellent job and replace her name at Template:FAR-instructions with yours. DrKiernan (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we separate that out to a separate thread, so an important discussion is not lost in all the rest of this? There's more than sorting the missing Dana to be resolved (Ucucha is also missing at FAC).  Would Laser come on at FAC?  Or Nikki move to FAC and Laser or DrK or Maralia or Cas move in to FAR?  It's all worthy of a separate section, so it doesn't get lost on this page.  Perhaps once we have a response on the entire notion from, , ,  and , a separate discussion section can be started.  (But not yet!  Folks will start opposing and supporting prematurely!)  I agree we need to keep momentum, and get something kicked into gear at FAR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , yes I am willing to act as a coordinator here or at FAC—whatever best serves the community. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate that there are larger issues to be resolved. But if we appoint a new coordinator here now, that does not preclude the FAR coordinators moving over to FAC or new coordinators at either place being added at some later date or any other permutation when consensus on how to proceed on a broader, more permanent basis is clear. DrKiernan (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Testing these new thingamabobs:    .  Well, allrighty then, DrK, but I hope we will have some discussion before folks start jumping in with Oppose and Support.  So, DrK, are you also willing to serve?  Ditto Maralia and Casliber?  There is plenty of work to be done at FAR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I can envisage concerns that might be raised in my case that don't arise with Laser brain, who has (as far as I'm aware) an uncontroversial history. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, you can sometimes get "testy" with obnoxious editors (that has come up in past discussions where I've suggested you for FAR delegate). But that is why I can see room for a Coordinator and delegates/assistants at FAR.  There is a TON of work to be done in here, and the people doing the roll-up-your-sleeves, dig in, keep the records, keep the stats, check the notifications, ping users, and who have a long history and knowledge of the process ... are likely to be you and Maralia.  So, my question-- why not have delegates/assistants to the coordinators?  You can sub-section the pages, and do a whole lot of things, leaving actual Keep or Delist to the coordinator(s).  For some completely unnecessary reason, there is some sort of "stigma" now attached to being an assistant or a delegate (which is amusing to me, since it didn't trouble me :)  Would you be willing?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. No problem from my side. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re-pinging per info on my talk page that my pings didn't work (thx DrK and Bencherlite).    , , , .  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, that still didn't work for me. Did anyone else get that ping? BencherliteTalk 22:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry my PingieThingies aren't working, but I can't sort it now (have flu); could someone make sure everyone I pinged knows about this thread? And then, if we get closer to any kind of consensus, we can start a formal proposal?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So, a lot of names/ideas have been thrown around—I'm not even sure what's being discussed at this point. But, I remain available and willing to help. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well the FAC coord pinger works for me, but then it's had a bit of testing since I put it in. Just to try and bring this back on track if Andy or anyone else feels it's wandering, earlier discussions posited Andy rejoining the FAC coord (previously "delegate") team, and DrK and Cas joining Nikki at FAR. I have no issues with any of that. I said earlier that I've always considered Maralia something of an honorary coord, always helping out in different ways, but I hadn't seen her round much lately. Perhaps if she just continued to help out in an unofficial way when she can? BTW, re. FAC, I don't want to prejudice any desire on Ucucha's part to remain part of the FAC coord team even on a part-time or contingency basis but, regardless, I think we can always use a third member on a relatively fulltime basis and if Andy would like to do that I'd be very happy to see him back. Lastly, re. the "delegate" term. I too never felt any stigma about the title, but like it or not the term seems to hold unpalatable connotations for some in the community, so I think it'd be simpler to just avoid the term if there are others that can be employed. In any case though, I'd prefer to see fully fledged coordinators (those I named above for instance) and then others who just help out in an unofficial, untitled way, if that works for them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Cas, DrK and/or Maralia jumping into FAR, either as delegates/assistants or as full coords - I would be happy for the help! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to see DrK and Cas as FAR coordinators, and Laser as FAC coordinator (following the necessary discussion at WT:FAC). As Ian points out, I haven't been very active this year, and I'm likely to remain somewhat sporadic. Perhaps it would be best if I continue as a sort of assistant to both processes, filling in as needed, closing premature noms, and such. There hasn't been any major backlash regarding my doing such things unofficially, but if y'all want to make it official, I don't mind. Maralia (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry all that my pingie-thingie isn't working: I hope by now everyone who wants to follow this preliminary discussion is following it. OK, following on Ian's post, he'd rather see Coordinators than Delegates.  That's not something I understand at all, but whatevs ... I'll go with it. It seems that everyone is on board with proposing Laser returns to FAC (do Ian and Graham want to remove Ucucha?), and DrKiernan and Casliber come on board at FAR. Then, the only difference  and I might have is with respect to, and I feel pretty strongly on that one, so would want further feedback from her.  She should be a Coordinator at FAR along with Dr and Cas and Nikki (removing the absent Dana). First, there is enough work to be done there (see the lengthy discussions above about all that needs to be done, along with the lengthy thread at FAC), including compiling lists with  and  so that a new Unreviewed Featured Articles page can be put together and processed systematically.  And FAR is more labor-intensive than FAC in the sense of a) removing and placing on hold FARs that had no talk page notification, b) checking that notifications were done and noted on the FAR page, c) reminding people that Keep/Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, d) sectioning and moving from FAR to FARC, e) coming to consensus about what articles can be moved off of the URFA list, f) checking that the one-nom and relaxed one-nom for URFAs is enforced, g) pinging in editors for feedback or follow-up, and I've probably left off plenty.  There is plenty of work for four coordinators, since FAR has fallen years behind.  Maralia is one of the longest participants in the FAR process (akin to DrKiernan) and one of the Wikipedia editors with the most institutional knowledge and knowledge of the bots and other processes needed to make all of this work.  For years, we did not bring-- for example--  on as a FAC delegate only because we couldn't afford to lose her sourcing reviews.  End result-- we didn't get her as a delegate, and we no longer have her sourcing reviews !!  Similar to the situation with Ealdgyth, I do not think it right to just say, oh, Maralia is doing all the work in the background, let's leave it that way.   I believe it sends the right message to the entire FA community to acknowledge those folks who are working their tails off in the background, keeping things running.  Some FA nominators don't seem to be entirely aware of all of the work that volunteer editors put in behind the scenes for the awarding of a bronze star.  So, I think if we are going to propose Cas and Dr, Maralia should be in there as well.  Could we get a roll call to see where everyone stands so far, and then decide who is going to put forward a formal proposal?  I believe that should be at WT:FAC, since it's the most watched page. Unless I'm misreading anything, the suggestion so far is Laser at FAC (Ucucha in or out?), and DrK, Cas and, depending on further discussion, Maralia at FAR, and removing Dana.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As a side note - my lack of participation at FAC is more due to just lack of time. And I quit doing sourcing reviews because quite honestly... it was eating all my time on Wikipedia. I had hoped that someone else would pick up the slack but... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. source reviews, Brian and Nikki have been responsible for a great many over the past year or two, Andy is also helping out, and several other editors in specialised areas are becoming involved in the process. That said, I'd welcome Ealdgyth's renewed involvement -- even if only on an occasional basis -- to spread the load further!
 * Re. Maralia at FAR, you'll have no argument from me about her becoming a fully fledged coord, I was simply observing that (as she herself has agreed) she hadn't been around too much lately. No problem there, this is a volunteer project, and I've always valued her participation anywhere, anytime! So if she'd like to be proposed as a fourth FAR coord, even if not necessarily full-time, then I'd be happy to support her, just as I've been happy to see Ucucha remain as a FAC coord even though it's been on more of an occasional/contingency basis lately and I think we should have another full-timer (e.g. Andy) on board before too long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so to go forward with a formal proposal at WT:FAC, we need to hear from and .  Dana hasn't edited since June.  Ucucha is active, but hasn't promoted in over a year, and I'm still not clear if y'all want to continue to carry him as a Coord . Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)  Also  in case she wants to weigh in.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal, but unless we hear from Ucucha I think we should remove him. The three us, Ian, Laser and me, would be able to cope at FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The proposed names sound good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging, but it's going to take a while to learn the ropes at TFA, and I'd rather concentrate just on that for now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to support the proposed names at FAR – although four co-ordinators here as compared with three at FAC seems a trifle odd. Very happy for Andy to resume at FAC. Inactive coordinators in each procedure should stand down. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ; if you read through the (long) discussions both on this page and at WT:FAC, you may see that there is quite a bit more work to be done at FAR than at FAC. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless anyone speaks up soonish with an objection, I will put forward the proposal at WT:FAC, and link it at TFAR, TFA, CENT, FA and here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox (pls feel free to edit and improve). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Read it and honestly couldn't think of any improvements. It looks to me from earlier discussions that Andy, DrK, Cas and Maralia have all articulated a willingness to serve if the proposal succeeds, so no-one's exactly being drafted, and the bit about not prejudicing Ucucha's or Dana's chances of returning to the coord teams at some stage is a good touch IMO given their valuable work in the past. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ; I'll get it moving after I get through my watchlist. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

New FAC and FAR Coordinators proposed

 * Pls see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

New FAC and FAR coordinators
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion
2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The AFD having closed no consensus with a determination that, essentially, a FAR should proceed the AFD of any bronze starred article, I've bitten the bullet and listed this at FAR. One of the topics that's resulted in some early disagreement is whether arguments about the validity of the page (whether WP:SPLIT was properly applied at page creation, and whether the topic in and of itself satisfies notability requirements) is an "actionable deficiency" in the FAR sense., if its possible, I think the discussion might benefit from some executive determination about whether you would consider such arguments to be legitimate in this venue even if they are not references to the FA criteria sensu stricto. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. My reading of the AFD suggests that those voters (and the closer) suggesting an FAR do so on the basis of the FA criteria (I see arguments regarding NPOV, prose, coverage, and sourcing). An argument could be made that the "In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles..." proviso at WP:WIAFA allows arguments to be made on the basis of those policies, but WP:SPLIT is not on that list. I guess the short answer is that I wouldn't blanket-discard all possible comments on the validity of the page, but that we should not be re-running the AFD here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to the ping to note that I do see potentially actionable concerns here wrt the FAR criteria. Maralia (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured list review
Can featured lists also be added here for review, or is there another page for that? – Dream out loud (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The list removal page is at WP:FLRC, also transcluded at the end of the summary WP:FLC list. GermanJoe (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Two-step process? Is it necessary or does it just confuse or complicate things unnecessarily?

 * See related discussion at FAC

Do folks feel this is helpful or unnecessarily complex? I am not sure of the need for it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the inactivity here, I think it's time to simplify. DrKiernan (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am thinking similarly - it'd be different if the turnover time was short and the idea was to give folks time to prepare, but they are long. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My thought is that decisions about any modifications that might be needed to this process should be deferred until we can see full lists of how many very old FAs are on the books (per the discussion at WT:FAC). Whether and how to modify this process depends on how many FAs need to be evaluated, and how we will decide to process those.  Without a full list of how bad the problem is, decisions may be premature.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Stalled again: nothing moving at WT:FAC. and, it seems that the three of us may be the only ones who care about reviewing and maintaining the quality of FAs; conversation has gone nowhere, although has also been involved in the discussions. I'm not sure what has caused such a dramatic cultural shift relative to the pride once associated with that bronze star. I'm wondering if today it's less about the integrity that was once associated with the bronze star than it is about google hits. If google hits are the name of the new game, then maybe just getting an article on the mainpage is what today's editors care more about ? There doesn't seem to be much interest in re-vitalizing what was once one a very active process and where many FAs were restored to status. It's unclear to me if today's FA writers understand what standards of review once were, or even care if many FAs are now deficient. No Signpost Dispatches, no reviewer awards, no talk page discussions to encourage reviewers ... just folks accepting the new non-review status of FAs. So, yes, something new is needed to deal with the deficient FAs on the books. Maybe it is time to initiate some sort of up-or-down vote process. Maybe those with clear consensus to demote lose the star after a month-long voting period, those with clear consensus to keep are not reviewed, and those in between are put through FAR. But FAR is dead, so what form should a new FAR take? Without an FA director to prompt changes to get FAs back into shape, who will take charge? Should we put our heads together on a sandbox RFC to address all of this? I think the numbers will be unprecedented relative to the 500 FAs we reviewed between 2007 and 2009-- I am thinking there are thousands of FAs out of compliance. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be very hesitant to move to a more vote-based process: most likely outcomes are either we would continue to have few participants (in which case no reasonable consensus could be discerned, in most cases), or we would have an influx of votes based on things other than the FA criteria. But I'm open to being persuaded by an RFC or other discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't need to change the process but interpret it more like FAC - FAC has an element of blackballing in it by necessity. In other words, to be FA, an article has to have dealt with all reasonable actionable issues. The same should hold for FARC as FAC. We just need to call time on things sometimes. All this is is the presence or absence of a star and logging at the appropriate assessment level. If someone can't complete it within a given period (we should say six weeks max), then it defaults to being demoted. If someone doesn't have time to fix it in the time frame, it is not a crime, it's not a tragedy, and folks are encouraged to work on something to bring it to FAC later. It should be no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So to sum up, we don';t have to change the process at all - just our interpretation and default. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts: The process should be gradual, and not try and send everything to FAR at once; that's asking for trouble. But then it can't be too gradual, because if it loses momentum, that's not good, either. Maybe getting a solid core of people willing to see the audit through, and then going systematically - either by chronology (2004, then 2005...) or by worst offenders. And coming up with some sort of way to track progress... --Rschen7754 04:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it could go faster than it is now. For more attention, would it be worth combining the FAC and FARC pages - like the WP:RPP page has both protection and unprotection. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rschen, I agree hitting FAR/FARC with loads of articles at once will just create a bottleneck, even if we got Nikki some assistance, but you're right about keeping momentum. I'll admit I didn't realise there were still so many older articles that hadn't hit FAR, as I seemed to recall us working through a list of older unreviewed FAs some time ago, but perhaps my mind's playing tricks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cas, interesting thought. Candidate and review processes are combined in the MilHist A-Class process, for one, so there's precedent of sorts -- it's essentially the same rules for one as the other, you just declare keep instead of support when reviewing an extant A-Class article. Do I assume that this proposal would involve dropping FAR entirely, since you'd otherwise still have a two-stage process with the second stage being FAC instead FARC?  In any case, I'd be quite happy to see an arbitrary time limit on FAR/FARC to help ensure quicker throughput.  The FAC community has -- in my experience -- never been in favour of explicit time limits, but the case might be made for doing it at FAR/FARC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the review timescale needs to be set in stone - I'd think about six weeks unless there is ongoing activity addressing concerns (much like FAC but a bit longer as these can be fiddly). But I really don't think we need to leave articles open for six months such as Featured article review/Planetary nebula/archive2.


 * The more I think about it, the more I think it makes sense to keep FAC and FARC on the same page - this will highlight that it is a core part of the FA process (the FAC page being one where articles are judged against FA criteria, whether they be gaining or losing status) as it will cement it as a core part of the process and attract more eyes on it. I suspect folks scanning up and down the page will also review there more often than is happening now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are to keep this process, which it looks like we are (though modified), then we need to replace Dana, who has not edited since June.
 * I think we should also remind ourselves that "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks": it is only "longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process". Yes Minister has been open since September, nothing has happened and no-one is working on it. We should have moved it to FARC in mid-October and removed it in late October, but we collectively failed to do so through our own inactivity. DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay then, as far as time limits go, we don't need to introduce anything, we already have guidance in the instructions, let's apply it more strictly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the time limit is not "arbitrary"; the two weeks in each phase (codified in the FAR instructions, but which somewhere along the line in the last few years got upped to three) was always respected historically. It was extremely rare for a FAR to go beyond a month.  When they did, and if just a bit of cleanup work was needed, Marskell and others active here dug in to do the work themselves (DrKiernan was part of the old team here that was very active in saving stars), or the article was demoted. Yes, we need another FAR delegate to help Nikki, but unfortunately, we are first going to have to have an RFC about how delegates are nominated/appointed/elected/whatever, since we now have a discussion running to appoint new TFAR delegates whose nomination was based on an email miscommunication, and those issues have not been addressed or even responded to in committee.  As of now, we have no process for nominating or selecting a new delegate.  If we did, I would have already proposed Cas and DrK and gotten this moving. I know Dr was involved when this was an active page, and I know he can and will set up and systematically follow a new version of WP:URFA, starting on the work we've begun to identify in the WT:FAC discussions.  For those lists, we need scripts or bots.  Nikki, my statement about a straight up-or-down vote was perhaps too broad or interpreted too literally.  What I would propose is not really "straight up or down".  When I'm home this afternoon, I'll take the time to lay it out more clearly, now that we appear to have more people paying attention.   Because the magnitude of the problem is unprecedented, I was thinking/hoping we could come up with a hybrid to process more quickly the worst of the worst (take the Germany example I gave at WT:FAC), while letting us run the majority through normal FAR processes. I would not support running FAC and FAR together.  Right now, we have two moribund pages, with declining standards of review (most FACR items are no longer even looked at by the new crop of reviewers), so combining them will not give us one better process.  We need re-invigoration, education, examples, leadership.  Also, FAC processing has declined to a dribble, while FAR needs to crank up to potentially process thousands of deficient FAs. We need training of reviewers, we need Signpost dispatches, we need accurate records, stats and archives to be kept with talk page discussions initiated to highlight trends and issues, we need what our defunct directorship used to be charged with to keep the process vigorous. FAR can be reinvigorated, or FAC can be reinvigorated, depending on who leads.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to repeat what I said somewhere else: I'm not sure lack of participation at FAR is the problem per se. The problem is that most articles that end up here only ever had one involved editor who knew or cared about it. So it was doomed from the start, and it's only here because the editor stopped curating and no one picked up the baton. Reforms start at a train depot long before this last one. Once we agree on the cutoff point and understand the scope of deficient articles, we should initiate a high-level sweeps process to efficiently remove the star from stale, deficient articles where the author is absent and no one has been taking care. Only articles that show some sign of an engaged review process where editors are interested in saving the star should end up here. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ,, : I promised to come back with my ideas, and then got sidetracked.  Proposal below.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed way forward

 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive63
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

is looking at lists and scripts over at WT:FAC, and maintains lists of FAs by length. So, at this point, we will have several thousand articles-- pruning starts: After pruning, we look at how many unreviewed FAs remain. When the FAC and FAR pages were very active, we processed over 500 previously uncited FARs in a few years (in addition to FARs not from the WP:URFA list). It's unlikely FAR can process that same amount in an environment of declining editorship and a cultural shift away from concern about the quality of the FA list. So, based on how many FAs remain, discussion is initiated about a higher-level sweeps process. FAR is short one coordinator now, and all of this would require two more active, experienced, hands-on coordinators or delegates. But, we have no process for nominating or appointing new people, and need an RFC. To not be stalled longer than necessary, we could still begin generating the lists and discussing the process. And speaking of delegate/coordinator selection process, none of this is doable at all without experienced, hands-on people (I lean towards editors who were active in the process when FAC and FAR were processing significantly more articles than they are today, and who were familiar with the systematic, hands-on, record-keeping, stat-based approach used). So, in the event a delegate/coordinator selection process is identified, are DrKiernan, Cas liber, Laser brain, anyone else active in this thread even interested in being a FAR Coordinator, or a FAR delegate for this part of the process? We have hundreds, if not thousands, of FAs on the books that are below GA level. If we have no candidates to oversee the years-long cleanup that is needed, we may as well give up and consider FA to be the equivalent of GA. So, who is willing and able to lead this review for a few years? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Start with a list of all FAs that haven't been reviewed since 2010 (including 2010-- that is four years old).  If possible, Hawkeye or Rick Block adds to that list a) the nominator names (see Rick Bot operated by  for example at Featured articles promoted in 2014), and b) a link to the last FAC or FAR in articlehistory (not sure that is doable by script).
 * 2. From the list maintained by The ed17, add in any very long FAs that have grown significantly since review (that is, they have lots of unvetted text).
 * 3. Also add in all of ColonelHenry's FAs, per the ANI thread.
 * 4. Add in anything else ?
 * 5. Based on a spot check, and going through WP:WBFAN, remove those that are still being maintained.  Just looking at WBFAN, there are big chunks that can be removed, eg Brianboulton, and some chunks that will stay, eg, YellowMonkey).
 * 6. Based on a spot check, remove anything reviewed recently at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page.
 * 7. Any other criteria for removing?
 * 8. If it is decided that some sort of high-level sweep is the only way through the number of unreviewed FAs, it wouldn't just be a straight up-or-down vote; we'd notify article talk and nominator talk, we'd wait a few weeks for discussion/improvements, then have the !vote, and only those with clear demote consensus would lose the star immediately, while the rest would just remain on the list needing review. (This step needs Coordinator/Delegate measure of consensus, and FAR or FAR-like pages that can be added to articlehistory.)
 * 9. Then we're left with a list, still, that needs to be systematically processed through FAR.


 * Aayyyeeee - err. a sizeable job. If we are going to keep this manageable we need to keep track of this in as few places as possible. I see Unreviewed featured articles and maybe this is the best place to update. I'd maybe make it to end of 2008 to make it a bit less ambitious....why are we selecting end of 2009 anyway?


 * Thinking about it on this scale makes me more sure that it needs to be combined with FAC page. Reasoning is this, when I nominate an article at FAC, a rough combination of maths plus etiquette leads me to the conclusion that it is only fair if I review at least three other FA nominees to make up for the minimum of three that I need for my nomination to pass. Now I'll scan up and down for something interesting. I generally forget about FARC for months at a time, and I am sure many other well-meaning folks do to. I sometimes get a sense that by separating them we give the idea that an FA star is permanent and its loss represents some ZOMG debacle. I feel if FAC and FARC are on the same page, it will emphasise that the process is fluid (not quite "easy come easy go" but you get the picture!) and that hopefully FA status will more come to more closely align with FA=best current content. As a nominator, when it comes time to scan articles to review, I'd also take a look at FARCs that pique my interest. This might also help throughput. In the same way that FA candidates are sometimes speedily withdrawn, if we had FARCs that were nominated, the original improving editor(s) are inactive, and several folks point out a large number of significant errors, these could be demoted fairly quickly (say, after 7-10 days even). The good thing here is that the FAR itself can function as a future Peer Review of sorts.


 * So, what I'd do is make the 3 FA coordinators and 1 active FAR coordinator combine as 4 FA/FAR coordinators of a combined page with the FARs at the bottom. I'd also make FAR a one-step process. It's easy - an FAR gets opened, gets discussed and closed one way or the other, like an FAC - the more I think about it, we don't need two steps.


 * And as far as generating a cohort of articles to sweep through, I think this is prudent and can proceed concurrently. It will go alot quicker with the combining of pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec)I think this is ambitious and runs the risk of creating another moribund process where not many people are active. Is it better to replace or reform the current processes rather than run them in parallel with a new one? Points 1 to 7 are a modified form (phase 3 if you like) of WP:URFA. Point 8 is in essence a modified form of stages 1 and 3 of FAR. Can we adopt your ideas or modifications of them as part of FAR in the case of point 8 and as part of URFA in the case of points 1-7 and 9?
 * FAC can handle up to 50 articles a month, so FAR should be able to handle a similar number in theory. To do so, what we need is faster through-put and more nominations.
 * On the first of these needs, Cas, if I read it correctly, suggested a default demote for articles with no keep comments and stricter, but not rigid, time keeping.
 * On the second need, more nominations should also draw more people to this page, thus increasing the number of potential reviewers. Could we scrap or loosen the "only one nomination at a time" rule for FAR?
 * I am willing to serve as a co-ordinator here and have no problem with Cas doing so either, but perhaps one way around the "how do we appoint?" problem is to simply re-appoint the former FA delegates: Sandy, User:Laser brain and User:Karanacs, or the current ones: User:Ucucha, User:Graham Beards and User:Ian Rose. DrKiernan (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, default demote if no keeps - and yes, but not rigid, time keeping. I worry that more noms will not draw more people. There are too many pages to look at (I almost never get to FLC and PR), which is why (among other reasons) I am thnking amalgamtion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm open to all ideas, but further thoughts.
 * a) Without an updated WP:URFA list, we've got nowhere to start-- no idea of how bad the problem is. My first steps were for generating a new version of URFA.
 * b) The last update to WP:URFA was done by Dr Pda me in 2008, listing articles not reviewed since 2006.  In the SIX YEARS SINCE, the need to systematically review FAs went dormant.  That's why we are now so far behind, need leaders to take charge of this (Cas, DrK, Maralia, Laser, anyone else ???), and why I am suggesting both the 2009 or 2010 date, and the need for a higher-level sweep (we have fallen years behind).
 * c) Don't get discouraged!  When the citation requirements changed in 2005, the 523 FAs that needed processing seemed daunting.  That was half of the FAs at the time.  And we did it.
 * d) Don't get discouraged, part 2. When Every Single FA and former FA needed to have articlehistory built (that meant tracking every peer review, Good article nomination, FAC and FAR), Gimmetrow,   and I dug in and did it.  This is what a typical talk page looked like before articlehistory, and most of the pieces weren't even complete for conversion.  We didn't have so many bots and scripts in those days-- it was months of painstaking manual work.  And we did it.  If we set up the URFA with the list, showing how big or small the problem is, the path will be more clear and we will see if people are willing to do the work.  Recruit people.  Write Signpost articles.  People may appear.  And if they don't, then we know a high-level sweep is needed.
 * e) On Cas's points about the notion of combining FAC and FAR, is there a way to ... for lack of a better word ... transclude FAR into the bottom of FAC, while maintaining two separate processes?
 * f) We need leaders to take this on.  Maralia would be another good candidate ... she knows all of the ins and outs, and has BTDT.  Anyone else?
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re point e, yes, we could theoretically do that with a small number of FARs - a more significant number would probably make the FAC page hard to load. But I agree that getting a URFA update in place is needed to get an idea of the scope we're dealing with. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in and available to help with this. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was crazy busy from Thanksgiving to yesterday, and consequently wasn't keeping up with the discussion here and at FAC. I've just read through, although there's so much there that it may take a few more passes to process. An initial thought: focusing on one year's worth of FACs at a time would be less daunting. Maralia (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, how about for starters we get up FARs right away for everything left from 2006 at WP:URFA? That is, ignore the one-nom rule for that set and get them going ?   We are "only" up to 2006 on systematically looking at old FAs.  Can we at least go in the next step through 2008?  I prefer 2009.  And, if we're going to do the work to generate a list, doing the work is the same to generate the list whether we cut it off at 2009 or 2010 ... so ?  Most encouraged to see so many good folks coming on board !  The task is less daunting when shared among competent hands ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * oops. never mind.  I just checked WP:URFA, and see that the unreviewed FAs through only 2005 and 2006 would be about 50-- too many to run through at once.  How about 10 per month?  One-nom rule relaxed?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think 10 a month is a manageable amount. I will post a Request for Comment for transcluding the FAR page onto the FAC page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say before Cas posted that it was great to see Maralia again, and that walking through Sandy's proposals, and DrK's and Cas's responses/suggestions, I didn't see much to disagree with.
 * Now, on the subject of combing FAC/FAR, as I intimated when Cas first raised the possibility, I'm used to that process at MilHist A-Class Review, so I have no problem with the concept. OTOH it looks to me like Sandy is talking about FAR/FARC remaining essentially separate but the latter transcluded to the end of the FAC page so they hopefully get more eyes on them -- is that right, Sandy?
 * Well, either way, with fewer reviewers around (a syndrome not confined to FAC/FAR by any means, I see a fair few PRs closing without any comments, and the once-buzzing MilHist A-Class Review process moves a lot slower these days), my first thought was that putting FAC and FAR together in any way might just mean we risk losing FAC reviewers, but OTOH we might well find that FAC reviewing doesn't suffer, and in fact FAC reviewers' eyes get drawn to FARs on top of the FACs they're already reviewing.
 * Anyway, if we want to proceed with that we'll need to nut out exactly how much the two are integrated, and will the present FAC coordinators also close FARs and vice versa. On that subject, be aware there are only two active FAC coordinators at the moment, Graham and myself. Ucucha became less active some time ago but has been available to step in on the odd occasion Graham or I have had to be away. So if we were to amalgamate the FAC/FAR processes and coord teams as they stand, we'd only have three active coords, not four (Ucucha's been pinged and I've also emailed him about this discussion). Personally I'd be more than happy to see DrK and Cas join the FAR coord team if others agreed, and I've always considered Maralia like an honorary coord.
 * Lastly, re. Sandy's point 5 at the top, just because a lead editor has left doesn't necessarily mean experienced editors don't have their articles on their watchlist. For instance I still watch several of YellowMonkey's Vietnam articles and revert vandalism or dubious changes. I daresay I could drum up some help at the MilHist project to review older military FAs, perhaps others involved with different projects could do the same. Might even see if we can find people to 'adopt' some 'orphaned' FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On the idea of transclusion to get more eyes, yes, Ian. The reason I suggested something akin to transclusion is that, if we find it doesn't work or if FAR becomes overloaded (meaning FARs overwhelm FACs), then untransclusing (or whatever) is a simple solution.  I don't want to run the processes together in a way that will be hard to undo if we find it makes a mess, but think transcluding (or something akin) would give us a good test. The other reason I'm not suggesting a permanent change is that we can avoid issues of who coordinates what:  we still have separate FAC and FAR coordinators, even if one page. We can separately deal with the need for new coordinators, but there are also COI issues if FAC and FAR coordinators overlap (I always declined to declare on FARs for FACs I had promoted).   I disagree with combined FAC/FAR coords, by the way.  First, for the COI I mention.  Second, because that gets us even further away from accountability in the absence of an FA director (who is tasked with leadership on these pages, as in the old job description Raul had?  The two different pages require different kinds of leadership and accountability).  Also, FAC and FAR coordinators should be working in conjuction already (that is, all should be intimately involved with the both processes, at least in the sense of following closely enough to understand where issues are occurring).  That was the role of the FA director, which we no longer have.  We need accountability in each process when they are lagging, records aren't kept updated or accurate, etc. If we throw five people at two very big jobs (which used to be full-time "jobs"), we end up with no place where the buck stops, no clear person in charge, no leader, which is the opposite of the direction we should be going, IMNSHO.  Separately, should we just move forward with a proposal at FAC and FAR talk pages to get Cas, DrK and Maralia, maybe Laser on board with this new FAR issue, or should we let it run a bit? Or bring Laser back to FAC, to make up for the loss of Ucucha?  On point 5, we agree-- that's why I said based on spotchecks.  A bit of history about how URFA worked:  if three knowledgeable reviewers (and we all know who those are) said an article should be moved off of (or in this case, moved down to resolved) the URFA list, that was done (delegate/coordinator decision) without a FAR.  Being on the list only means someone needs to look at it according to a pre-defined set of criteria-- nothing set in stone that any article on the list has to go to FAR.  Absolutely on the "adoption" (I think DrK took over a lot of Lord Emsworth's old royalty FAs post-FAR, for example.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sample, transclude FAR to FAC
I fiddled with transcluding FAR to FAC, and there is a missing step that someone would have to sort out (getting the Template:FAR-instructions to come in as well, maybe related to include/noinclude or something). But here's what it looks like. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When I look at that I see the FAR-instructions. They are above the second-level "Featured article reviews" heading, just as on the FAR page. It is possible to remove sections from transclusions by using noinclude, so that only removal candidates would be shown, for example. DrKiernan (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see; yes, it does! So, why don't we just give it a trial?  The only issue I suspect may happen is that people may start declaring delist in the FAR phase, so someone will have to monitor and deliver the standard message that declarations of Keep or Delist are not made until the FARC phase, blah, blah, blah.  Then if we had some more delegates to kick things up (move from FAR to FARC in two weeks, unless there are exceptional reasons not to), we'd be in better shape.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: transclude FAR to FAC

 * Split from ongoing discussion above.

Transclude FAR to FAC for a one-month trial period (see sample) to facilitate additional reviews at FAR (see discussion above as well as on the FAC talk page). At the end of one month, re-evaluate, and untransclude if unsuccessful, but keep the two processes separate, with separate coordinators. The FAC and FAR coordinators launch a Signpost article make a post at WT:FAC explaining the transclusion, and educating reviewers on the differences at FAR relative to FAC (eg, support or delist are not declared in the FAR phase, article talk page must be noticed in advance, notifications must be done on the FAR, etc). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support trial.  As things stand now, FAR is straining under declining review, and we have hundreds if not thousands of deficient FAs on the books, to the point that FA might as well be GA (see discussion). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per 's comments below, I have removed the last sentence of the first para from the proposal, and added it as a comment from me here.
 * The additional volume on the FAC page will mean that FAC coordinators may need to resume the old practice of archiving FACs that have received no support after a given time period (the page now has FACs running for months with no support). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written. Comment. The idea of generating data is a good idea, though. I can imagine this going wrong or going right ... but that's all it is for the moment, imagining. Experiments are for gathering data so we can make an informed decision. Making a lot of announcements about the new system and trying to retrain people to see FAR as part of FAC contradicts the idea that this is an experiment; we don't want to present it as a fait accompli if we don't even have the data yet to tell us whether it will work as intended, and if it doesn't work, then all we'll succeed in doing is making a system that's still bewildering for most Wikipedians even more bewildering. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, would you support a trial (only) now that I have eliminated the Signpost suggestion, and we just put an explanatory post WT:FAC ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it ... I'd like to see what others think. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've removed another sentence per Ian's feedback. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... I promise I won't hold this up if there's support for it, but I'd still like to see more comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose, per you and DrKiernan. That deals with my main concerns ... on the details, I'm not the best person to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Support basic concept of integrating FAR with FAC to try and generate more interest in the latter off the coattails of the former. Admittedly my initial thought was just FARCs transcluded but obviously it takes FAR to get to FARC so not quibbling about making it the whole caboodle. However I don't see the need for the last sentence of the proposal's first para, in fact I think it's confusing because to my knowledge there's never been a set period of inactivity or lack of support for archiving FACs; FWIW my rule of thumb has been to let no nom go beyond a couple of weeks without comment or a month without some serious support -- a few have certainly gone beyond that lately but we have had the odd distraction, one of which at least now seems to have been put to bed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed that sentence from the proposal (it's not crucial to the success of the trial, and FAC coords can decide if they want the page to routinely run to 50 or 60 stalled noms), but "never been a set period" in your statement needs clarification.  Whenever the page was backlogged (my definition was more than 24 or 30 noms on the page), I archived FACs that didn't have support, were lengthy and going nowhere, or could be better served off-FAC.  We are seeing lately the mistaken notion that FACs are magically promoted on 3 Supports, even when the FAC is a lengthy peer review and there's no consensus to promote.  The old idea that "FAC is not a vote" might be revisited on FAC talk.  Bst,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support If the decision is to not transclude both the review and removal candidates, then I strongly support transclusion of the removal candidates only. I can see how the review phase could be bewildering for new people, but I think editors will rapidly grasp the purpose of and process in the declaration phase. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - not fussed whether we have one or both segments from FARC there. Either option ok by me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, shall we do it ? Proposed blurb at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See the blurb proposed in my sandbox;, , , , , , , does anyone have any objection to me going ahead and transcluding FAR at FAC? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I remain to be convinced that this is a good idea. The FAC page can be slow to load, at times because of all the transclusions. I am willing to see how it goes, but would like to see it removed at the end of the trial, and then have a discussion on making it permanent. Graham Beards (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable (the proposal is for a one-month trial). But, have a look at the bottom of this page at the Anarcho-capitalism issue.  That FAR sat on this page for six months with little feedback.  If it had been transcluded to FAC for more eyes, any competent FA reviewer would have quickly noted the deficiencies and entered a declaration.  We have hundreds to thousands of deficient FAs on the books, devaluing the decent FAs they stand next to, and they aren't going to be processed without getting more eyes on them.  And the Anarcho-cap folks seem to think they can get the FA reinstated, so the work may be coming FAC's direction :) Separately, on the slow to load because of transclusions, we need to get back to reminding people at FAC not to use done, not done, other templates that slow down the page (that's why they are mentioned in the instructions, but I'm noticing lax enforcement.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already read the Anarcho-capitalism discussion and have the Talk Page watchlisted. I don't question your reasons at all, just the practicalities. WRT to "lax enforcement", I have lost count of how many times I replaced those ✅ templates with "Done". Please do not make accusations of laxity without evidence. Graham Beards (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for watching A-C (and for those pesky checkmarks). Not intended as an "accusation"; I just ran through FAC and moved two of (my) transcluded templates to talk, and put out reminders to two other editors to try to avoid templates.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy for this to happen (transclusion that is). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Relax one-nom rule

 * See ongoing discussion above.

Allow 12 noms per month (paced at 3 per week, so as not to overwhelm FAR all at once) from the Unreviewed Featured Articles (URFA) list. This relaxation would not apply to regular FAR noms (those not on the URFA list), which would be subject to one at a time, and independent of any non-URFA noms by the same editor. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * and, I should clarify that I'm not proposing that we relax the notification rule, so folks might want to start going through WP:URFA to see which articles on that list actually are deficient and which need talk page notification; if we don't notify, we'll be stalled on even getting through three noms a week. On those that don't appear to need a FAR, we might put our heads together at the talk page of URFA as to whether some of them can be moved off the list (moved down) as resolved without a FAR.  In the past, three knowledgeable reviewers concurring was enough to resolve and move.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, the clarification is fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No issue, especially if Nikki's comfortable with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a sensible way to go. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like the way this avoids the risks of unrestricted bulk nominations while working through the list in a measured way. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. --Rschen7754 05:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - GamerPro64  05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Sock   ( tock talk)  13:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the vigilance, ! I have rejigged your wording, based on my understanding of what I wrote in the proposal, which I now see may have been less than clear. The idea was three per week overall, not per nominator-- three per week per person could overwhelm the process! I see the lack of clarity in wording was mine, but that was what I meant ... so if anyone disagrees with the rejigged wording, we may need to revisit. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. BencherliteTalk 14:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold
Is there a FAR coordination page to keep track of, for example, FARs on hold? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Featured article review/Nine Inch Nails/archive1
 * There is not - we have typically had nominators report whether their concerns were addressed or not. Not all on-hold reviews end up being reopened, because in some cases the nominators are happy with the improvements made. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, could you start a page where you list them, and that can be used for other general FAR Coordination (since there may soon be four of you needing to keep track of on holds)? What do you do with those that aren't reopened, in terms of articlehistory? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Featured_article_review/Coordination. We generally have not included such reviews in articlehistory. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can those reviews on hold come back now? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nine Inch Nails has had some work done and some discussion on talk since it was put on hold - MusikAnimal, there are still inconsistencies in reference formatting. Laurent, do you wish to resume the review as nominator? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot processing

 * Also, who or what bot is handling closings? Both Featured article review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1 and Featured article review/Planetary nebula/archive2 were closed five days ago, but haven't been processed, are still in the Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates, and still have the star.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * May still be manual given the loss of GimmeBot a while back. can't remember offhand, have you had an official request to incorporate FAR closures into FACBot (or create a similar bot separately)?  I know we've been piling on the requests but when you get a rep for doing stuff so well... ;-) Even if you can just let us know status that'd be great so we know whether to close FARs manually for a while or wait for the automation... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, let's get it sorted. There were many times when we had to do this manually, and I'll be glad to help if someone clarifies.  Maralia also knows how to do it.  I'll go finish up those two manually now.  Dredging up User:SandyGeorgia/FA work and Gimmebot steps from my old Sandbox (I believe Maralia copied that somewhere?).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, apparently the old templates no longer work, and I don't know how to help manually close out the FARs. What happened to the FAR top template?  ?  I can do articlehistory, but not the FAR top and bottom templates.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. But the FAR top and bottom templates don't work anymore.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This stuff should be done on a timely basis:    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was out at a party this evening! Nikki and Hawkeye talked about a FAR bot last month and I chimed in with some info then. Not sure if he's had a chance to work something up yet. My subpage with FAC/FAR closing steps is at User:Maralia/FA bot. I will close the other one if you haven't already beaten me to it. Maralia (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where would we be without you :) But I couldn't make the FAR top template work.  I did them both, but my closings are being reverted at Anarcho-capitalism.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, had noticed that and watchlisted it already. Looks like the FAR top template was the problem; think I have fixed it. Maralia (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! I also noticed that manual FAR closings in recent months are missing the closing diff.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maralia, I tested your fix, and it's working now:  thanks!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. BTW Nikki learned how to manually close FARs, and has been doing them ALL this year, bless her. We can catch up on those missing diffs later, or let it go since we're only talking about maybe 30 FAR pages. Maralia (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, Bots/Requests for approval/FACBot 2 (FAR closing) was approved for trial a few weeks ago but Hawkeye asked a few days ago for the trial to be suspended over the holiday period because of his temporary inability to access the server and his reluctance to run FAR closing remotely during this time. BencherliteTalk 06:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, there we go -- tks Bench. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Anarcho-capitalism situation needs to be watched:   It's unfortunate that I did the manual closing five days late, considering I was also the final editor who opined to Delist.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There are still several FARs on hold that could be brought back here now for resolution, and there are several FARs that can be closed or moved. I could nominate three more WP:URFA noms for this week, but I don't want to overwhelm the page. Could we keep things moving? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, done one. Looking at others. But time patchy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot processing again
Nikki closed several FARs three days ago that still haven't been bot processed. Featured article review/archive/February 2015. I've put out several queries about the status of bot processing to and the FAR coordinators  that have not been answered. What's up with bot processing of closed FARs? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any pings about bot processing other than this one. I was online when she closed those 2 FARs, and had opened all the pages to manually botify them, but stopped when I remembered Hawk said the bot was ready to start closing them. I did see your query on Hawk's page, but I don't have any more information that you do. I do wonder, though, if the change to the FAR archive process (using the current month subpage now) might have thrown the bot for a loop, since the process I laid out for him specified that current month closes would be on the main log page. Maralia (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And while we're on the subject, I suppose we need to tell him about the rare situation where we don't need articlehistory (Featured article review/Pedro I of Brazil/archive1 being the latest example). Maralia (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that non-archived/non-completed FARs like this should not be written in to article history (I overwrote that one). But when there is talk page notification, extensive discussion and transclusion at FAR, as in Pedro I, I think it best to archive it and document it in article history. DrKiernan (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Maralia, have you not seen my long posts and queries at the FAR coordination page (which have not gotten a single response)? Which page the archives are on should not affect bot processing as far as I know.  FACs are processed from monthly archives, so doing FAR the same should be easier.  Separately, why would Pedro I of Brazil not be added to articlehistory?  I don't understand why it would not.  The more we can add to articlehistory, the better off we'll be five years down the road when we're trying to sort out a mess like we have now.   A FAR is a FAR, and not adding them to ah will just create confusion down the road. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw your posts at Wikipedia talk:Coordination. Your questions there seemed to be for Hawkeye, though on re-reading I can see now that there were others.
 * Which page the archives are on might affect bot processing because Nikki and I had outlined the process way back in November/December, so the bot could be looking in the wrong place for 'current' closes. I only mention it in case Hawk needs to make an adjustment at his end; I don't mind the change itself.
 * My reasoning for not articlehistorifying Pedro is that the FAR was closed without FARC, as a procedural keep, and no one aside from the nominator saw any actionable concern with regard to the criteria. I had in mind as precedent the first Natalee Holloway FAR and one of the Obama FARs, both intentionally not articlehistorified. I see that the Obama FAR has since been added to articlehistory, but I found the discussion I remembered here, where you argued against articlehistory given that the issues raised in the FAR did not engage the criteria and instead were better suited for dispute resolution. I realize that both of these took place quite some time ago, but that's what I was thinking of. Maralia (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FAR is a process that doesn't require FARC, but not going to the FARC phase doesn't mean those pages shouldn't be entered in articlehistory. Multiple Obama FARs were started by a prolific sock ... a whole 'nother problem there! Withdrawn FARS don't need to be entered in AH, but anything that gets reviewed should be/could be ... it will help us down the road. That no one mentioned anything wrong with Pedro may indicate ... something. I don't want to find us in the future in the same position we're in now ... going through lists of unreviewed FAs, and finding they were reviewed on talk, or somewhere, with no record left.  Thanks for the link to the FACbot page ... one of my queries on the FAR Coordination page was if we can get comprehensive instructions in one place, since many steps have been missed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The first Holloway one is not in articlehistory. The Obama discussion doesn't mention a sock at all—only disputes considered outside the realm of the criteria, which was (to my understanding) why you argued against articlehistory there. Statements you made there like "It never should have been at FAR, it doesn't belong in articlehistory any more than any other dispute resolution does" and "that Keep probably shouldn't have gone in articlehistory as a Keep, because the purpose of FAR wasn't really engaged" are what I'm referring to here. If we want to take a different approach now, that's fine, but you seemed baffled by my logic, so I wanted to explain where I'm coming from. Maralia (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * THanks, Maralia! Many different things going on.  I can't see any valid reason for Holloway not to be in articlehistory, but most likely it was an out-of-process nomination, since comments indicate it was right after TFA (articles aren't supposed to be nommed at FAR within days of TFA, per instructions, and I believe that was true back then as well).  On Obama, there were too many to remember disruptive FARs, and long-standing disruption the article from socks. But, to the extent you point out my arguments then, things have changed significantly in how FAR functions now vs. then.  In 2008, an out-of-process FAR would have been closed very quickly (within a day, if not within an hour)-- no reason for articlehistory, no real FAR.  Pedro has been at FAR for weeks ... so it has had a real FAR, or a chance at one, and no one has brought forward issues.  Since noms that are out-of-process, or not engaging WIAFA, are still getting a FAR these days, why not record the event for posterity?  I don't know why Pedro is still there, but I don't see any harm in botifying the event.  I also would have botified Holloway, since most of those are valid arguments, but I wouldn't have said that then for COI.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about non-inclusion of either the Holloway or Obama examples: the Holloway review was out-of-process because the article was on the main page the previous day and the Obama review was the day after an earlier review closed, or clearly disruptive. I don't think the Pedro review can fall into those categories though, at least not clearly. DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep on all counts. If we get back to out-of-process reviews being closed immediately, then I would agree those wouldn't need to be botified.   Whether Pedro could have/should have fallen into that category is armchair quarterbacking at this late stage ... but good for future discussion.  Should a run-of-the-mill content dispute be brought to FAR? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The bot has just run correctly for the most part. Thanks, User:Hawkeye7! The only thing I see missing is that the FAR notice at the top of the talk page hasn't been removed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc. The Bot will now run daily. Let me know if there are any problems, however minor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , wonderful! Botifying KEPT is easier than REMOVED, so let's keep our eyes out for a successful remove.  There are a couple of small adjustments needed:  Not "Promoted", but "kept" or "delisted" (in both the edit summary and the closing template) and can you make the events in order, followed by currentstatus?   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot processing 3
A removal worked, thanks Hawkeye~! But, I'm wondering why you are assessing FFAs as B class? Historically, the bot has removed the class (leaving it blank) so that Projects can re-assess. As an example, I'm not sure we can assess this article as B-class, since it's a content fork. The historical argument has always been that FAR does not assess-- we just remove the assessment and leave it for WikiProjects to re-assess. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Has this glitch been fixed? Thanks again!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

, the FACBot bombed on Featured article review/Nine Inch Nails/archive1 ... wrong date in articlehistory, wrong Coord ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's because the bot recognized my edit rather than Maralia's. The bot's actions are understandable in the circumstances. DrKiernan (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! Sorry, and thanks.  (And thanks for jogging my memory ... we lost an editor today, who was working on a FAR, because of some nastiness with a bot operator ... I got busy on something else and had forgotten.  Off to investigate.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Colonel Henry articles

 * See Featured article review/Paulins Kill/archive1 and Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive261

We've discussed previously the problems with sockmaster Colonel Henry's FAs. I propose those are not typical FAs, should not require talk page notification for FAR, or to be put on hold: they will all need a new vetting process. All of Colonel Henry's FAs (see WP:WBFAN) should be checked, and in fact, all FAs s/he supported should be reviewed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll run off a list of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did his socks nominate any articles? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure. All I know is at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColonelHenry.  For example, User:ExplorerCDT is now a redirect to a vanished user ... so sorting it all could be fun!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alcohol laws of New Jersey
 * Geology Hall
 * Finn M. W. Caspersen
 * Duino Elegies
 * A Song for Simeon
 * Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey
 * Samuel Merrill Woodbridge
 * Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lookin' good !!

 * Featured article review/archive
 * Featured article review/archive/February 2015

We haven't had this many Keeps in a month since 2010, and we're only part way through the month. Even better, there have been only a few Removes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Jay Chou
Talk:Jay Chou --Oldnewnew (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , please nominate the article at WP:FAR if you so desire. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping
Frustrated? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that highlights an ambiguity in the instructions. The time limit is not absolute. I think we can afford to be strict with putting nominations on hold if the talk page notification was responded to, or if work or debate is ongoing, or the time between notification and nomination is hours, or the FA nominator is still around, but in this case I'm inclined to let it pass. We might consider strengthening the wording somehow. DrKiernan (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, DrK. I'm not fussed one way or another, but am frustrated at the need for pinging, and wish the Coords would watch and respond so I'm not the only one doing it ... in that example, and on the talk page post above that went unanswered :)  So, if we're relaxing the "typically two to three weeks", why do we have multiple noms hanging around the page that most clearly can be moved or can be closed?  Let's please keep the page moving; I hesitate to nom further from WP:URFA when the page is getting full, and there are noms that are stalled, yet we have so many FAs that still need review.  And we haven't even begun work on the next round of URFA that is sorely needed !!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ON closer review, there's a problem there with IDontLikeIt, since there has been nothing actionable specified anywhere. Four days isn't enough notice, particularly when the talk page notice said ... nothing.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Next. We have four FAR coordinators.  The nominator did not do the notifications.  Must I?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And on my closer review, I'm inclined to agree with you now. Let's not do notifications until we have substantive comments to address. (It is automatically listed at the Greater Manchester, Musicians, and Pop and Rock music wikiprojects at the moment.) DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have placed it on hold pending completion of the nom process (notifications and providing specific deficiencies to be addressed). FWIW, I saw the nom last night, but Sandy had already responded within 5 minutes of it going up. I didn't need a ping; I just didn't see any harm in giving the nom a day to respond. Maralia (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note
As we work through the new WP:URFA in sandbox, I'm (negatively) impressed by the number of FAs we saved at FAR in 2006 thru 2008 that are showing up again with issues. I'm thinking we might do more of this, to have a record of who is taking over when the old nominator is gone. Thanks, Laser! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC
I think that FAR regulars might want to take a look at Talk:Michael Jackson. The citation formatting had degraded over time, and then someone tried to fix it by introducing his/her own made-up format based on the wayback template. He claims to have done this to multiple articles, including other FAs, so a more comprehensive review might be necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia
I've noticed that User:SandyGeorgia has been inactive for a couple of months. Sandy is usually the most active participant in FAR discussions, and I'm worried that things have ground to a halt without them. Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia, are you aware of this? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandy's been coming and going for a bit. I've just looked here after a while and will get back into it soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cas. Beyond the implications for FAR, I always get concerned when a frequent editor suddenly disappears, so I hope Sandy is OK. Hopefully it's just a case of coming and going, as you suggest. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was mostly gone for several years. Partly because every time I tried to edit, I was chased off by a certain FA writer's hounding of me.  The last time was when I was in the Cayman Islands on vacation, with almost no internet access, but when I could get a connection, I found him (and the same usual supporters) once again going after me at ANI-- that was what made me decide what the heck, and stopped me from continuing to pursue the sweep of FAs that needed FARs.  It seems that, those people who chased off the FA director got what they wanted-- no more do we have a complete process, where we promote and demote to maintain standards, and where TFA is part of the process of maintaining standards.  Instead, we have little turf wars, TFA going one way, FAC another, and no one caring about FAR.  Without a director overseeing that the whole thing works, FAs have lost value.  Just, everyone wants their glory, unlike when we all worked together to maintain standards across the board. Partly because I just grew tired of how really bad our medical articles were (and remember, I left FAC to turn my attention to medical articles, so that felt like a Really Stupid Decision).  I cannot say now for how long I am back.  That depends, day-to-day, on what happens with my husband's cancer. For now, while dealing with health issues, I am happy to spend some "waiting room" time among people I genuinely like and have for years.  If the nasties take over again, I will decide if this time I will stand up to them, or if this time I will leave again.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update,, and best wishes to your husband. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ace Books
Featured article review/Ace Books/archive1 is on hold, has been worked on outside the FAR process and now needs a decision on what should be done with the FAR page. I'm thinking of deleting the review page and not archiving but am happy with any other choice. DrKay (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it would be worth archiving for record-keeping purposes...see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Coordination for related discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll bring it back to FAR for any final comments in the same way as that earlier case. DrKay (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Nikkimaria on that one. It is worth recording for record-keeping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a content is neutral, determine if sources are reliable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are considerations at Requests for adminship.

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


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

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

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Anna Frodesiak, I think you might be at the wrong page? FAR has nothing whatsoever to do with content creation, and is only tangentially related at best to sourcing and BLP issues. Did you mean WP:FAC? &#8209; Iridescent 23:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Iridescent. :) I think you are right. It just goes to show how involved I am in this area. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

longstanding bias on the Jesus page
It may come as little surprise that a controversial topic such as Jesus gets treatment that reflects the experiences and beliefs of the editors more than published sources. The most prominent section is a summary of the Gospels based primarily on primary sources (the Gospels themselves). RSs don't treat the topic this way, but several vocal editors say that we're under no obligation to follow RSs and we should follow our own judgment instead. Since these editors won't refer to RSs or policy, it's hard to reach a compromise or forge a consensus with them. Maybe I should bring the page up for FA review. Currently these editors resist changes on the basis of the article's FA status. Since it's a featured article, they say, it must not require substantial changes. Ideally, the review would solicit the right input we need to improve the article. Alternatively, I could undertake a dispute resolution. Any idea which route I should take? This dispute has been popping up in various ways for years. Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathan, based on your description of your concerns, I wonder if WP:NPOVN mightn't be the best place to start - it is specifically designed to address concerns about bias. FAR is broader in scope, though it could be used if NPOVN does not work; conversely, RfCs are generally more targeted than your concern seems to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried the NPOVN and an RfC. It sounds like my best bet is dispute resolution. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WT:FAC
Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup
Last year, Chris and I ran across a stinker that was promoted in 2014 at FAC. (I'm linking the cleanup page for ColonelHenry just to point out how difficult it's been to clean up after him.) The discussion is at User_talk:Crisco_1492/Archive_64. Note that Iridescent suggested it might be best to just FAR all of ColonelHenry's FAs, on the assumption that they probably won't survive FAR. I'm not taking a position, just noting that unless new information comes to light, I don't intend to run this one at TFA, ever. Also pinging. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * err, that wasn't it. Tell you what. I think we should go through them one by one, so nominated it here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed the link. Thanks Cas. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think just methodically listing them, one at a time, and outlining the specific faults is a way to start. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Severe and irreconsilable content disputes on Werner Mölders (and other articles)
Judging by the ongoing discussions on Talk:Werner Mölders which are part of a wideranging dispute as seen at ANI, which doesn't look like finishing soon, the article probably should be delisted. Can someone start FAR proceedings?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Maralia's status as coordinator
Maralia is listed as one of FARC coordinators but has been inactive for two years. I notified her about this, but she's not yet responded. I emailed her as well, but I've not received one reply. What to do about it? --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

...before the end of the year...
...it would be great to have some eyes...any eyes...on any articles listed on the flip side of this page..................Beuller...Beuller....just concluding a could would be great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick question
Is it possible for me to have one nomination for FAR and another for FAC in the same time? I say this because there is an article I think should be delisted but, seeing as most FARs drag on for months, I wouldn't want it to interfere with an FACs that I'd nominate (please ping in response). -Indy beetle (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can do both. The restrictions on one nom apply at each place separately. DrKay (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock issue

 * Sockpuppet investigations/DCGeist/Archive

There are likely other socks, which will lead to other FACs and FARs. Perhaps whenever socking by the nominator is discovered on a FAC or FAR, they should default to DELIST. That could stop the problem. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive3, DCGeist did image review on his own nomination, archived.
 * Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4, DCGeist reviewed his own nomination, promoted.
 * Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive1, DCGeist and DocKino both struck opposes, archived.
 * Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive2, DCGeist and DocKino both supported, promoted.
 * Featured article review/Sound film/archive1, DCGeist article, DocKino declared "keep", kept
 * Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1, DCGeist nominated, DocKino supported, promoted
 * Featured article candidates/Film Booking Offices of America, DCGeist nominated, DocKino supported, promoted.
 * Featured article candidates/Parks and Recreation (season 1)/archive2, DCGeist and DocKino both supported, promoted
 * Featured article candidates/Baseball/archive2, DCGeist nom, DocKino supported
 * Wow that FAR for Sound film was one of my first reviews. I'm rather stunned and appalled by this revelation. GamerPro64  02:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I haven't been paying attention as much as you have. GamerPro64  03:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I sorta had to :) Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You think there are other DCGeist/DocKino socks? I'm interested in knowing more... you always had a better nose for this than I. I'd had my eyes on these two accounts for a long time, but he fell off my radar when he stopped editing. Coming back with both accounts simultaneously to renew activity at Elvis Presley was rather bold/reckless. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say, someone should go through every one of his FACs and FARs. The type of editor that does this kind of thing ... well, does this kind of thing, keeps doing it, and I just doubt that there is only one sock.  DCGeist always showed a certain confidence that he did not have to play by the rules ... because he wasn't. Bold/reckless?  Look how many years he got away with it; it was business as usual for him. But the real reason I posted here is to talk about whether we should have a policy of what to do with these kinds of FAs.  Since I was not a fan of DCGeist's work anyway, I wonder why his articles should remain FA.  If we had an active FA director and an active FAR page, every one of them would be reviewed, with a default DELIST unless proven otherwise.  We have case after case now of older FAs that we know need review, and are not getting it ... so what does it mean to be a Featured Article any more? This highlights another factor in the latest line of, it no longer means anything to be an FA, because there is no demotion happening.  WP:FAS.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it, just not ready to list here yet. I'm trying to decide if I want to expend the energy on building consensus to automatically demote these articles because of the abuse of process (vs actually building a list of what might be wrong with them). I'm not sure where the community's appetite lies or if anyone even cares that much considering the lack of commentary here. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's the new culture.  Getyer stars even though they have no meaning anymore, because we no longer demote.  Once an FA, always an FA, so FA means nothing anymore. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of the articles listed had entirely different nominators. I don't think it is fair to those nominators to automatically delist those ones. --Rschen7754 02:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, notice that my proposal specifically said "socking by the nominator". Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  06:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they should all automatically and immediately be listed at FAR. It may actually be that some are actually fine. But they all undoubtedly need to be reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, socking and related bad behaviour by the nominator should, IMO, lead to automatic delisting, but, obviously, without prejudice to renom by any good-faith editor. If there is socking and related bad-faith and deceptive behaviour involved it is very hard to determine just exactly how the reviews and reviewers' judgements have been manipulated. Editors assuming good faith are easily led far afield by someone not playing by the same rules. Listing such cases at FAR—ignoring for now that process' apparent comatose state, and its lack of a sufficient preventive effect—shifts the burden of proof: the process and its participants must untangle the manipulation and any effect on reviews. Delisting with a possibility of immediate renom places the burden on the article's editors only with a clean slate for reviews. --Xover (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. Right now all I can say is that I don't know which are worthy to be FAs or not. Looking at the noms there are degrees of double-dipping and it is hard where to draw the line and might look a little arbitrary. I do feel for a poor nominator who unfortunately had two socks support, but am trying to separate out process. Hence the first step for any current FA is a Review. Anyone at FAR should look at the current state of the article and work from there. If they are not up to scratch they will be de-featured. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good on you, Cas. Listing them is good, because if no one identifies issues in the FAR phase, it is possible to close the review without moving to FARC.  On several of them, I noted that the image reviews might need to be re-done by an independent party.  I hope this will work as a deterrent. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * in fact, why not take a look at one or two and comment on whether they fulfil FA criteria or not? One of the annoying things about being given this FAR coordinator role is it makes it hard for me to comment on or fix articles listed here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I can certainly take a look, if it'll help, but I'm nowhere near sufficiently up on the criteria to be competent to do a review. I haven't been involved in a FAC since 2008, and haven't even kept up on WT:FAC since Raul and Sandy regained their sanity. --Xover (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FA reviewing does not have to be that complicated. Just looking at an article and pondering, "how could it be better?" is a great place to start - getting an overall feel for the prose, balance, comprehensiveness and factual accuracy and going from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Update
All listed for review now. I can't see anything else that we can do except review them on the pathways we have. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cas, it's way past bedtime here, and I am out most of tomorrow, but if you don't have the time, and if no one else gets to it, I can finish filling in all of the notifications tomorrow afternoon when I am home. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That'd be great. It's Sunday evening here and tomorrow is looking really busy for me. Plus some stuff before bed to do here as well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I will look in tomorrow. If someone else gets to them first, good, too. Doing that many notifications creates too much burden on you. 'Night!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was my reaction to the sock-puppet investigation that lead to Sandy's uncoveries. For the record, am disappointed by what she found, and agree 100% with Cas's listings. For now am treating case by case, unless systemic issues are found, which atm, doesn't seem impossible. Let's see. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(possibly deliberate) copyvio issues with images
Apologies for this kinda hasty and half done handling. I'm out of time right now and will be travelling / otherwise busy IRL at least until wednesday, but felt this might be urgent enough that it can't wait. Sorry about dropping this half-chewed on everyone.

In any case, at 's request above, I started looking at the FARs listed here, and started with images. On Elvis there were a couple of red flags in light of the socking (wouldn't have raised any flags for me without that context); but on Film noir I found at least possible copyvio issues that look like they may be deliberate. I hasten to add that this isn't my normal beat and I may well be misjudging here, but with that caveat, it looks pretty bad to me. The two examples I've had time to look into so far:


 * File:JackBlinds.jpg. Uploaded by DCGeist with a PD claim based on publication between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. However a Tineye search leads to a copy at Getty with a clearly visible copyright notice (meaning it's still in copyright). It looks to me like the uploader deliberately cropped the image to hide the copyright notice. There are possible scenarios that could explain this, but I don't find them plausible. I've nominated it for deletion at commons which will hopefully bring out editors with relevant expertise that can correct me if I've misjudged the evidence here.
 * File:SorryWrongNumber2.jpg. Uploaded by DCGeist with a PD claim based on publication between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. However a Tineye search leads to this higher-resolution copy where you can clearly make out the copyright notice. It looks to me like the image was deliberately scaled down to make the copyright notice illegible (flyspeck). Especially since the uploader claimed the source was "Scan from private collection"; meaning there was no reason for the low resolution, and the copyright notice would in any case have been clearly visible on the physical object.

These were the first two I looked at in detail (two for two), but just looking superficially at the images in these two articles, a lot of them (those uploaded by DCGeist) have the same PD rationale and the "Scan from private collection" source. In other words, this looks to me like, potentially, relatively massive deliberate copyvio. I hope I'm wrong, for several reasons, but it doesn't look good.

As I'm unable to follow up for a couple of days I'm dropping a note here and dumping the problem in y'all's lap. Sorry `bout that! (PS. I seem to recall this sort of thing is your forté at FAC. Perhaps you could take a look? At least enough to be able to tell me I'm way off base, if that's the case, here, if you don't have time to dig into details?) --Xover (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick comment, will look in more detail later: just because Getty claims something as their copyright, doesn't mean it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On balance though, having a bit more time to look into things, I think it's likely in this case that Xover is correct and there is a (potentially large) copyright issue with uploads here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't like the sound of that, but it fits with my long-standing concern. I don't want just yet to commit my ideas to public print, but if anyone has access to hard print sources, I suggest a thorough POV and verifiability check on at least one article would be helpful.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How about checking the images at Kinetoscope? Now there is a FAC support I should be ashamed of.  Just based on what is said above, this looks like a good target to check.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as images that one isn't too bad - there are improvements that could be made but on first look none of the images stand out as obviously suspect. Most are legitimately pre-1923 publications. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Timeline: Geist's 2006 FACs got through easily (Sound film, Kinetoscope with an embarrassingly deficient FAC); he had a harder time in early 2007 with B Movie and Mutual Broadcasting System, and RKO Pictures failed; in April 2007, Featured article candidates/Leo Ornstein was another non-review FAC, promoted on scant support; in May 2007, DocKino was created and supports at Featured article candidates/Film Booking Offices of America. DocKino enters the next three FACs (Film Booking Offices, Baseball, Film Noir - through Feb 2010 - and they pass), and then in 2010, Featured article candidates/RKO Pictures/archive3 appears to pass without any agreement I can find that image issuess were corrected. RKO Pictures appears to be the crown jewel. Which brings me to, Holy Cow, does Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive3 seriously need a FAR. It passed with 12,000 words, and is now almost at 14,000. I would expect more than that level of support (with outstanding opposes) for The Beatles. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: The Beatles, I'm significantly less concerned with that one knowing has had eyes on it. Perhaps they can opine on its condition in recent years. The image issues on RKO and elsewhere are very troubling, as their seems to have been a concerted effort to deceive other editors about the copyright status of quite a few images. -- Laser brain   (talk)  11:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We could easily cut down The Beatles if necessary, particularly as there are so many offshoot articles in the project. Just to check, though: is the 14,000 word count too much – is that a concern in itself? I appreciate 's point that it's grown considerably since October 2009, but a) the article's watched like a hawk, and b) the Beatles-related events covered in 2010s are notable and proof of the band's continued popularity. The 2010s section is the first place I'd start. I imagine those items have been added as they were announced, yet in retrospect their importance diminishes with regard to the subject as a whole. Thank you for the vote of confidence,, that's very kind of you ... JG66 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for Film noir
Ok, I went through all the images currently used in Film noir, looking for licensing issues. Based on finding "two-for-two" with signs of bad faith, my expectations were pretty low. So the good news is that it doesn't appear to be as bad as I feared in terms of numbers. The bad news, of course, is that there are definitively issues, and my impression that there has been bad faith involved is only strengthened.

In summary, of the 18 images used, only 3 (including the two previously identified) are definitively problematic. There are a number of the remainder that raises red flags once the assumption of good faith has been compromised, but none that are clearly copyvios or otherwise unequivocally demonstrate bad faith.

I have not looked at any sound files used in the article as the rules for audio recordings are even more convoluted than for visual materials.

Note Where the Actions taken column says "None" it means that I don't think any further action is needed. The ones that are left empty are ones were I'm not yet sure: some could end up "None" and some could end up with deletion or fixed rationales and so forth. Also note that when I describe a Fair Use claim as "Valid" I only mean that it looks like a good faith rationale that adresses WP:NFCC. It's not really a judgement of whether that fair use claim would actually hold up if tested here or on in court. My "Valid" is a significantly lower bar than that.

Not as bad as I feared in terms of copyright problems, but my impression of bad faith on the part of DCGeist is reinforced. Several of the problematic images could be explained as as various forms good faith mistakes, but there are a few that I cannot reconcile with good faith, and combined with the socking it seems unlikely.

In the edit histories here there are intersections with various editors blocked for socking: (sock of, who was a sock of ),  (sock of ), and. Any of these match your spider sense ? There is no obvious connection except intersecting edit histories on these images, and for a couple of them these other blocked editors appear to challenge DCGeist's image descriptions etc., so I see no particular reason to suspect the connections are anything but incidental.

If you want to double-check my reasoning on these I'd be grateful. Images and licensing isn't my normal beat, so while I feel reasonable certain for my own purposes, I'm a little uncomfortable putting it up where others might rely on it.

Everyone: would it be useful for me to do a similar run through of any of the other articles involved here, or is this just cluttering up the discussion? --Xover (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Awesomely thorough and incredible work. I don't speak images, and I'm glad Nikkimaria does :) The other issue is that, given the image problems uncovered, I am concerned that we have a thorough source check of hard-print sources at least once.  Since much of the body of DCGeist work points ultimately to an existing company (RKO), we should check for POV ala paid editing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, very nice work. One other important note: While individually the fair use images may be supportable, the number is excessive - as a rule, the more non-free images in an article the harder each is to justify. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than agonise and given the circumstances and volume, I suggest a purge Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for Kinetoscope
I went ahead and checked over Kinetoscope too. No real copyright issues found (short version: everything is pre-1923 and public domain), but a couple have some issues that make it hard to determine definitively. The images' licensing information (source, evidence of expired copyright) are however deficient for a FA (in a FAC review I would have expected these to be flagged as needing fixing before promotion).

I note that the one file that bugs me here is another DCGeist upload claimed to be a "scan from private collection", but I've found no actual evidence contrary to the claim, and the claim on its own is plausible. Boils down to whether one is able to assume good faith. --Xover (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a real non-answer. I could scan all sorts of non PD images with that rationale. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for Sound film
Image license review for Sound film too.

No real copyright issues found, but a couple have some issues that make it hard to determine definitively and a few appear to be non-PD but no obvious red flags leads me to think these are more honest mistakes than any indication of bad faith. The images' licensing information (source, evidence of expired copyright) are however deficient for a FA (in a FAC review I would have expected these to be flagged as needing fixing before promotion). --Xover (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for B movie
Image license review for B movie.

No real copyright issues found. The images' licensing information (source, evidence of expired copyright) are however somewhat deficient for a FA (in a FAC review I would have expected these to be flagged as needing fixing before promotion). --Xover (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for Mutual Broadcasting System
Image license review for Mutual Broadcasting System.

No real copyright issues found. The images' licensing information (source, evidence of expired copyright) are however in some cases somewhat deficient for a FA (in a FAC review I would have expected these to be flagged as needing fixing before promotion). --Xover (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Notifications, other socking concerns, and recusal question
I am still plowing through the nominations, and have emailed Laser brain about other socking concerns that we should look into as soon as we have time. I am trying to notice on each FAR what was done re image and source reviews, and I am trying to also ping some of the reviewers on those FACs if they are still active. One question: I did not promote Elvis Presley, and I did archive it once. Could we get some consensus as to whether I should recuse myself as a reviewer on Elvis? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's water under the bridge and any reviewer is welcome. If you're concerned about it, just disclose the prior involvement in your review. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks ... I will still recuse on any article I promoted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would have thought a non-issue. But all comments are welcome! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Non issue; full disclosure has been made. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

article on Ronald Reagan controlled by handful of pro-Reagan partisans
The Ronald Reagan article currently:


 * States in the lead "when he defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in an electoral college landslide, winning 44 of 50 states." I attempted to add "although the popular vote was much closer with Reagan receiving 51% and Carter with 41% (with independent candidate John Anderson receiving the bulk of the balance)."  Massive opposition and insults on the talk page.  One partisan even wanted to add the figure 90.9% for the percent of the electoral vote Reagan receive. Basically my point is that we should either add both the electoral college numbers and the popular vote numbers, or neither.


 * Our lead also states "Foreign affairs dominated his second term, including ending the Cold War, the bombing of Libya, and the Iran–Contra affair. Reagan publicly described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire", . .  .  "  Reagan in fact described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" in his first term.


 * Our lead states " and fought public sector labor." Reagan fired the air traffic controllers.  But I don't know if there's anything else which justifies us moving from a specific to a general conclusion.

Please take a look at the article history and/or the talk page. It really is controlled by a cartel of pro-Reagan partisans. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Another example, I added (→‎Second term: adding new section on Staff concerns regarding Reagan's fitness for duty in early 1987. Please see "staff raised questions (2nd term) . . . " on our Talk page.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=828505651&oldid=828374162 It's an important topic, backed up by good references, but no, one of the cartel members removed it.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * FriendlyRiverOtter is (of course) misrepresenting what is happening. All you have to do is look at the talk page. For starters, look at the RFC that voted unanimously against his proposed addition on the Bitburg cemetery deal. (Which included someone who voted against Reagan twice.) His latest escapade is trying to minimize Reagan's beating a incumbent in a 44 state landslide as being anything but a "landslide". After other editors provided sources calling it exactly that.....the story shifts to "I view it as more an anti-Carter landslide, rather than a pro-Reagan landslide". Now it IS a landslide....it just has to be characterized to suit him. In any case, this is the disingenuousness we have been dealing with. Cheers.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we should include either the electoral college numbers and the popular vote numbers, as I made in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=next&oldid=832738653 or we should include neither set of numbers. A lot of Wiki users only read the lead, and this is where it's most important to get it as right as we can make it.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * FAR is not part of the dispute resolution process. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Article on Barack Obama is controlled by handful of pro-Obama partissans
 * What Laser said: FAR is not dispute resolution.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, what do you recommend for dispute resolution process? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A long walk in the park? This is Wikipedia-- there is none.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Frustrations showing through a bit there, Sandy? :) Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is described at WP:DR. It does not always work very well, but it is the prescribed way to resolve disputes on the project; and it works best when everyone involved participate in good faith with the aim of reaching a consensus. --Xover (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. And I agree that it's important to pursue it with a good sense of patience.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Allright, I got over my bad mood and took a look, . I see that the article prose size is 50% bigger than it was when it last passed FAR, that the lead is bloated, and that, just from citation and MOS cleanup during those FARs, I am still the third top editor by edit count, while Happy (who had several FAs) is long gone.  That the article has grown by 50%, without someone versed in FA criteria on board, is not a good sign. If I had an opinion, it would be that the lead is already bloated, and adding more isn't the way to go.  If you want the dispute addressed, you go to WP:DR.  If you want its star removed, you come to FAR, and you sit here for several months, but don't get dispute resolution 'cuz that's not what we do here.  We tell you if the article meets WP:WIAFA or not.  Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do appreciate you giving me a realistic idea of what to expect from WP:DR. That's good to know going in.  And on the one of the specific topics here, if the lead is already bloated, then maybe we should include neither the electoral nor popular vote numbers for the 1980 election.  In the body of the article, yes, but in the lead, it sounds like probably not.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the version that passed FAR many moons ago. You can explore other political bios that are FAs at Featured articles, but careful with what you see there, because many of them may have fallen below standard.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I hope there's some dispute resolution process! :-) By the way, you'd be welcome to take a look at the Reagan article if the topic at all interests you.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But then I might have to trade in my Reagan Governor's Scholar Award. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't want you to do that! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC) PS  and which president often began an answer at a press conference with "Well . . . " ;-)

Speedy delist for ROT13?
Can we invoke IAR or SNOW to immediately delist ROT13, or at least skip some parts of the lengthy delisting process? The article is 16,000 bytes long and has 17 references, which makes it unlikely that the article could satisfy 1b or 1c, and even at a glance I can see that most of the references are not reliable (#2,4 are Usenet links, #11 is a blog, #13 is raw code so doesn't verify the text it's attributed to, #17 is a random website). It seems silly to wait a minimum of 6 weeks, assuming I understand the FAR/FARC process correctly, given that this article was promoted in 2004 (and last reassessed in 2007), and is nowhere near 2018 standards for FAs. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Permission to do another FAR simultaneously
Hi, I have just nominated Rudolf Vrba, but I notice that another editor has requested a FAR for Werner Molders, a page for which the content dispute appears to be still ongoing. I was wondering if I could have permission to nominate a second article given that I wasn't the one who requested it. Also, if someone else would be willing to nominate it, I would help in any way I could. Catrìona (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring
I'd just like to mention this here as an article badly needing an FAR. Promoted in 2009, it contains too many references to Kesselring's memoirs and is full of NPOV language. Catrìona (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Belton House
I'm wondering how to proceed with Belton House, it is obviously a nice article, but it appears to have gotten stuck in the past and is presented as an old fashioned museum piece. The house gets almost half a million visitors a year but the events and occurrences get virtually no mention. It appears to have been promoted over 10 years ago and doesn't reflect the house as a 'living thing'. National Trust properties work very hard at attracting visitors and the article just doesn't reflect that. If you look at their webpage here you can see what visitor attractions they offer. I don't think i'm personally capable of updating the article with a "visitor attraction" section and would unlikely have a consensus to do so even if I could. What to do? Szzuk (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae
I need some advice about just how much work I should do on this article in order to keep its FA status. In short, my question is this: do I make the minimum needed changes, or do I rewrite it to be the best possible article I can make it?

Here is an organized paraphrase of the issues raised at Featured article review/Battle of Cannae/archive1. Addressing them is what I consider "the minimum needed changes".
 * points out the lead needs to be expanded. (This I have done.)
 * DrKay also believe the sources need to be improved, by reducing the reliance on primary sources, providing more citations as well as using more recent articles & books. (This has been addressed to various degrees, & is a work in progress.)
 * notes that the discussion of primary sources is unsatisfactory, & either needs to be placed at the beginning if important (IMHO, it is) or deleted.
 * Monstrelet also notes the sections "References", "Bibliography" and "Further reading" need to be sorted out, & a consistent bibliographical citation format used. Since the original nominator shepherded this thru FAC, it's been reworked by many hands.

For the most part I could address these four points relatively quickly; finding & integrating more secondary sources will take a little longer, even if I restrict myself to publications in English. However, as I familiarize myself with the topic further, I find there are at least these aspects needing attention:
 * The effect the Battle of Cannae has had on military theory has been, I'm sure many will be surprised to learn, relatively recent. Until the 19th century, students of this battle thought of it only as Rome's most crucial defeat which they managed to not only weather but overcome & win the war.
 * A proper, & detailed discussion about Hannibal's failure to march on Rome. As the article currently stands, this is covered by one paragraph; I believe this should be covered in a much longer section.
 * The fact that when the Romans were surrounded, they either refused or were unable to surrender to the Carthaginians -- so each defeated soldier had to be killed. It's a brutal yet important fact that this article elides over: at least 50,000 men were killed by the hands of their victors using swords & spears. As one recent secondary source admits, "war is truly terrible, and to turn our eyes away from its results is in itself an act of cowardice. Hannibal's great victory, his tactical masterpiece celebrated through the ages, produced, in the end, little more than corpses."

Addressing these last points to Wikipedia standards will take much longer than the first batch. Maybe months. But IMHO I don't feel this article is FA quality unless they are addressed. Doing so may force me to extensively rewrite the article, thus introducing new issues. (For example, I have my own approach towards using primary sources in historical articles that FA regulars may not condone.)

Thoughts? -- llywrch (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Some remarks:

T8612 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the "further reading". All the books in this section should be merged with "printed sources" in a single "bibliography" section. Ancient sources can be kept separate.
 * "Varro, in command on the first day, is presented by contemporary sources", which one (there are only two)?
 * Link for note 66 is broken.
 * I think the paragraph on Scipio Africanus is out of scope here; his campaign happened much later. I have reservations regarding the whole subsection "Effects on Roman military doctrine", because the Manipular reform took place much earlier (during the Samnite Wars).  There was however an effect on the property requirement for serving in the army after Cannae, since there were not enough men. You can look at Structural history of the Roman military.
 * In the Cambridge Ancient History 8 there is an interesting chapter by John Briscoe "War and Politics at Rome" on military strategy, where he shows that there were two "factions", one -- the war faction -- led by the Scipii, the other led by Fabius Cunctactor and Claudius Marcellus. I would add it there and sort the Roman leaders according to their political allegiance.  The immediate effects were the adoption of the Fabian strategy for 8 years and the domination of Fabius' allies at the consular elections.
 * I would make a list of the Romans who died at Cannae.
 * Primary sources must stay. Livy and Polybios are everything we know on the battle!
 * , you make some excellent points about the article. However, my primary concern here is whether to simply address the points raised in the FA review, or the many more points -- such as those you raised -- in order to keep this a FA article. (I'm beginning to think it's best to let this fail, become a B class article, then improve it thru the steps to become a FA article once again.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Modern military historians continue to call Cannae a (if not the) classic double envelopment. There's your search term for secondary sources. Narky Blert (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)