Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 2

Closing early
What do people think about closing the FARCs early? I'm against it as I feel delisting even the obvious failures early will encourage others to violate procedure and close the less than obvious ones early as well. Joel has pointed out, however, that it frees up a longish page and editors can focus on the salvageable ones. Marskell 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Once it's on FARC, it should run its course because there's always a chance to improve the article (even if it's very, very bad). Additionally, I agree that others will prematurely close some of the better ones. &mdash; Deckill e r 16:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As an example, Volkswagen Type 2. 5 remove votes, clearly not up to featured article standards, here is what's been done (or not done) to the article since it was up for FAR . These are the types of reviews that can/should be closed early since there is clear consensus for removal and no work is being done. Joelito (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But do you see the point that others may use this interpretation to close less clear-cut things early as well? What if Zelda had been closed early, as it might have been? It was one of our first successes but it took nearly a month to get people working on it.


 * The min. timing should be for all IMO. Marskell 16:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the point but I obviously wasn't going to close Zelda early since it was being worked on. I even intentionally left a message for it to be left more time . I think if an article has been on review for 2-3 weeks and one week on FARC and no work is being done then why leave it? However, if the majority feels that they should be left for two weeks then it will be done :) . Joelito (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly; I noticed that Zelda was on FARC deep into the nomination. Although I didn't help the article in its original run, I managed to work on the prose with another editor, which led to keep votes. &mdash; Deckill e r 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Safer and easier to do it by the book. And what if a keen contributor returns home from vacation to find the FARC closed off early? Tony 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then. Safe and sound for me :) . Joelito (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree we have to allow enough time for them to fully run the course. The Volkswagens on the list aren't troubling me at all, and who knows, someone may come along and fix them (during a rare summer snowstorm :-)  Asperger syndrome is a prime example of the utility of the full month.  That article could be salvaged, and still can be salvaged, but is in the grips of a situation that could be/should be resolved in ArbCom.  It may ultimately be FARC'd, but the process has allowed the problems to come to light, and has empowered the editors to produce a better article.  The longer the article has stayed in the focus of FAR, the greater have become its chances of emerging improved over the long run.   When it goes to FARC, even if a rash of early votes are against it, that may further empower the editors there to work out the issues.  The outcome may ultimately be the same as the direction an early vote might go, but the article has a chance of emerging better from the process, and the process has encouraged editors to resist the original research.  Let 'em run their course, give 'em the best shot.  There are so many bad FAs out there, if we can improve some, it's worth it.  Heck, maybe the anarcho-capitalists will even decide to start working together, since that is another one that appears to be more of an editor conflict situation :-) Sandy 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Prince (musician)
The nom deleted this after he uncovered it wasn't FA. Is there something we should be doing about this?

Featured article review/Prince %28musician%29

Sandy 11:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is not in fact an FA, the content of the mistaken FAR might be sent to WP:PR. Marskell 12:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation problem list
I moved Disco King's eminently useful list of FAs with citation problems to Wikipedia space: Featured articles with citation problems. As we go along removing things, I'd like to strike through things on this list. Marskell 11:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it would entail some work (I could do it, if Disco King agrees), but would it be helpful to prioritize the list, by separating those that are selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia, then Version 1.0, etc, so that we could look at those with more visibility first? (Is there a place where we can get the Version 0.5 list, so I don't have to go through each one?)


 * Another means of prioritizing might be via those that have content that should be "current": for example, I'm tackling the medical FAs first, because outdated or inaccurate featured medical content can mislead consumers. Sandy 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know very little about the planning for the different versions though what you say sounds sensible. Maybe we can post a note on the relevant talk pages. Marskell 13:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you know little, I know nothing :-) It might not be a good idea, since I don't really know the significance of Versoin 0.5, Version 1.0, etc.  I'll wait to hear from others.  Sandy 14:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek – WikiProject notifications
I can't find a WikiProject to notify about Dawson's Creek.

Although I've only been leaving messages on WikiProjects for about a week, it doesn't seem that the messages have generated interest in working on any article. Sandy 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very disappointing. Oh well, people can't expect to retain FA status for their work on a permanent basis, as though it's some military award or doctorate. Too bad, I say. We've done our best, which is significantly better than occurred under the old process. Tony 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarajevo
I was trying to determine when it moved to FARC, and there's no date on the commentary. I think this is it; can we insert a date somehow? Sandy 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And what to do about Rebecca's comments ... She's a good writer who I'd like to encourage into this room (and the FAC room), even though we've quarrelled before (about trivial date links). Tony 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Helping
There are a few nominations on the list where the issues, sometimes merely complaints, could be taken care of by the nominator themselves. This process seems to be a 'passing the buck' process (sofixit). This is a list of the currently 32 nominations, their nominator, and how many edits the nominator has made to the article: I understand that this is a new process so consider this a criticism of it. What can be done to prevent complaining and to encourage article edits? --Maintain 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your criticism. However, we (the reviewers) are not complaining we are pointing out flaws in the articles so that they may be fixed. Why don't we edit them? Probably becuase we know little about the subject. I might nominate a medicine-related article beacuse it is clear that it does not meet the references or comprehensiveness requirement but since I am not expert/connoiuseur/amateur in the topic I will not edit and leave it to the people that know to fix the problems. Joelito (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered that Maintain thinks I could fix Race. And, in all Tony's spare time, I wish he'd just fix all of Wiki.  Sandy 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not particularly relevant. The purpose of this page is for someone who finds an article they think to be non-FA standard to say so, and have it de-featured if someone does not fix it. Frequently, the editor may not be knowledgeable to any useful level in the topic of the article to deal with its material, but they can nevertheless see it is unreferenced, or poorly written, or from what they do know, they can see it to be out of date. Given that likely non-experise, the time lag here gives acres of opportunity for those more knowledgeable to come along and do something about it. This is not merely "complaining", it is the observance of where standards have slipped and a call for other people to investigate the claim and try to see if something can be done. If it cannot be, or does not get done, then the FA star should go; without requiring the nominator to be expert in the topic. -Splash - tk 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot to add, in terms of how we can encourage edits: I'm spending time every day notifying involved WikiProjects for every article nominated, and my work has yet to generate a single response, as far as I can tell.  Maintain, if you have any ideas of how else to better reach people, I remain willing to do the work.  Sandy 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I did not expect such a large response. Thanks for reading my comment and responding. It is true that there are some legitamite nominations here for articles that require a lot work, but some are just complaining about minor issues in fantastic articles (these are nominations, at least in part, based on issues that could be resolved by the non-expert nominator and issues that would have been more appropriately said on the talk page). It just seems like some people are treating this like an emergency or race, and not rational problem-solving. Also, editing the article your trying to get de-featured might make the nomination look a little less hostile. To Sandy, notifying relevant Wikiprojects seems like a good idea. Perhaps we could also notify key people listed in the article's history page. Or how about starting a Wikiproject with the mission of editing FAR-listed articles?

Anyways, I'm trying to help out Sarajevo. Could someone please review the following sections: Government, Demographics, Tourism, Geography and climate? I will continue to work on other sections. It is not easy doing it alone. The problems were inline citations and prose, so please let me know if anything in those sections still require the cites and please correct my writing according to criteria 2a. Thanks. --Maintain 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree on the emergency/race, Maintain, because the articles are here for a minimum of a month. When no editors appear over a month to help on the articles, it's not possible for us to work on all of them.  (Sarajevo has been here for a month already.)  And, what your data above doesn't show is the hundreds of edits I've made to Asperger syndrome, even though I didn't nominate it; I got involved there, trying to help rescue it, and have gotten my head bitten off for that.  It may be best to let original editors take ownership of their work.  Also, I contacted not one, but four original editors of Race, and as far as I can tell, they haven't touched the article.  I'll have a look at Sarajevo when I can.  Thanks for the helpful comments; maybe you can stick around and help us out after your work on Sarajevo.  Sandy 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add one general comment to this discussion: if the issue is literally only a matter of prose than Maintain has a fair point. Mediocre writing can be fixed by people who know nothing about a topic and a nominator should be willing to pitch-in in this regard. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say we should not delist solely on the basis of the well written criterion (unless it's truly atrocious) because it is the most easily remedied deficiency.


 * I might agree with you, Tim, if "truly atrocious" were changed to "significantly below the requirement of 2a". If none of the contributors/maintainers of a FA are willing to work on substandard prose until it's "compelling, even brilliant" (well, "compelling", in this context), I think serious consideration should be given to delisting. Without this, the FAR/C process provides little motivation to WPians to improve what I, and others, regard as a deep problem for the project. Tony 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When, however, there is a problem with citations (which a majority of FARs have), comprehensiveness, or accuracy, we can't expect nominators to do the work. Their bringing it to the attention of this page is enough, and from there we can only hope those knowledgeable on the topic become (re-)involved. Marskell 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers here, as in the FAC room, are under no obligation to edit the articles they review. IMV, WP is well served by the band of contributors who manage, review and critique articles in these places. Their efforts are best directed towards covering as many articles as possible, rather than trying single-handedly to improve nominated articles. There are not enough of us to do even that. We point the way for others to improve articles, we encourage and motivate, and we attempt to maintain benchmarks. This should involve a wide collaboration among WPian writers and editors. Tony 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, for a long time, the FAC instructions said "Nominators are expected to make a good faith effort to improve their nominations". Raul654 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have re-added it. It's a fair enough request and it may dissuade people from drop-it and run noms. Marskell 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with the statement in its spirit, but the current phrasing seems too strong. Shouldn't it be more like "Nominators are asked to improve their nomination to the best of their ability." By my interpretation of this thread, there is a rough consensus that nominators aren't "expected" to do anything after nominating. Punctured Bicycle 17:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to chime in here. What is the ultimate goal of FAR? I'm currently tackling the Biography WikiProject and did a marathon session yesterday of going through the top 125 core biographies and assessing them and found a number of FAs that had NO inline citations or references. I only nominated one as a test balloon (Max Weber) as I'd never done it before and wasn't sure how much push back I'd get, but I can tell you that for helping to improve WP I would be discouraged from posting FARs if I was expected to dive down and fix that one article which I know absolutely nothing about when I'm trying to organize and maintain the project itself. In doing these surveys, I only have time to assess how well-referenced they are. Perhaps if someone noms for not being well-written then I think it's reasonable to expect them to fix it too, but references and inline citations? Also, I'm involved in other projects where I am editing and maintaining (and writing) articles that do interest me and that I'm knowledgeable on, so I feel that my time is best spent doing that, IMO. If the goal is to keep the FAR list small, then expecting noms to fix articles they didn't write and don't meet FA won't be a problem... IMV, if the ones who maintain the article aren't willing to step up to the plate, then it should be delisted.... plange 18:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's everyone's opinion on my thoughts above? I don't want to nominate anymore until I find out... plange 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, keep in mind that if we actually want to see these old FAs brought up to par—rather than merely delisting them in the most expedient manner—nominating them en masse will probably be counterproductive, as many of the original writers/nominators are no longer around (Lord Emsworth's departure will be particularly crippling in this regard), and the high number of nominations will overwhelm the (fairly small) number of editors willing to fill in citations after the fact. Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, then I'll do an in-out method, when Max Weber is done, I'll nominate the next, etc.? does that work? I definitely don't want to cripple the effort. plange 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's how I've been proceeding, Plange. There is a long list of outdated medical articles, but I'm only nominating them one at a time.  In the meantime, I continue to bring them to the attention of the Medicine project, hoping that someone will do something about them before I have to nominate them.  You might bring articles of concern to the attention of the relevant WikiProjects in advance ??  Sandy 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

De-listing FARCs that attract few comments
I wonder whether people agree that if a FARC ends up with, say, two objects and nothing else after the required time, and appears not to have been much improved, that this alone is reason to de-list. I'm keen to send signals that encourage contributors to collaborate during the process. If no one has bothered after the template and Sandy's notices at project pages, why not de-list and let them go through the FAC process again? Tony 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with de-listing. Joelito (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you are refering to the the C and Java articles I was thinking of closing them later today. Joelito (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In practice, Joel and I have been doing this. There are a few that have been de-listed with only two or so removes. In fact, Java programming language is on the chopping block today and is just the sort of article you describe. I agree it should go, as there's nothing doing. Marskell 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Before we started notifying Projects (and by the way, I put out more notifications yesterday on Regional Notice Boards, which I haven't yet posted to the main page), I might have had doubts – had we made our best effort to save an FA? I'm now fairly convinced that a number of editors of older FAs may have moved on, and that the WikiProjects won't take on these articles.  If no one is overseeing an older FA, keeping it up to at least a minimum standard, it should be delisted.  Sandy 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been unhappy with how FAR (/FARC) have been for quite a while, but haven't been able to put my finger on it until now. I think the latest two sections on this talk page neatly encapsulate the problems I have with FAR/FARC. As Maintain notes above, the vast majority of nominators make no effort to fix the articles they are nominating, and this section shows that it only takes one or two (uninvolved) users' comments to demote an article. This is a situation I am very dissatisfied with. Raul654 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I more or less second what Raul says. If the article is underreferenced, well, you can have troubles to fix it if you're not familiar with the subject. But if it is just prose, a nominator can at least demonstrate an attempt to copyedit it, even if he/she is not familiar with the subject.
 * Otherwise, I can see "FARC wars" (pun not intended) coming. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As an example, can someone look at the extensive problems on Race, and give me an idea of how editors not knowledgeable in that area can fix it? I contacted the WikiProject that "claims" it (Medicine), and four involved editors, yet there's been no movement.  (I also pointed out on Medicine several other FAs that are in bad shape; no movement on them either.  I have yet to see any indication that any of my efforts at notification are achieving anything.) Race started out in the medical/biology realm, but has since moved in other directions, well beyond any expertise I have.  What else can I do?  I have some knowledge in the area of Asperger syndrome, and did get involved in helping there, even though it wasn't my nomination.  Sandy 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply to Raul, one or two uninvolved editors if a primary issue is in-line citations. That, at least, has been my position. We're either removing the status of those or we aren't; if we adopt a default keep for these articles because there's only two remove comments it will, literally, take us years to get through the list Disco compiled above.


 * However, I do not, as stated in the last thread, think that we should delist based solely on the well-written criteria if we only have a couple of comments. Marskell 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, that's what happens. Also, I thought that the inline citations thing applied only to articles promoted past some date? -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "That's what happens". What is what happens? That pages are being de-listed solely on the basis of the well-written criteria with only two or so comments? I have closed a majority for more than a month and that is certainly not happening. Twelve have been removed under the new process, eleven of which had no or very few citations. The only one de-listed for other reasons (Coca-Cola) had a fairly robust remove consensus.


 * The consensus on older articles without in-line citations is that they will be gradually phased-out if they are not brought up to current standards. Marskell 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Raul, Tim and Maintain that nominators (but not necessarily reviewers) should make an effort to improve their article. However, the FAR/C process is, IMV, the key to ensuring that WP FAs remain a dynamic aspect of the project. Specifically, a promotion should not be considered permanent, but must be supported by a contributors who care about the article. This will involve updating and improving the article from time to time in response to changes in the knowledge base and WP's expectations of FAs.

This is why I'm keen that we do not go soft on nominations that clearly reveal a lack of that support. If no one bothers here, too bad, that's what I say: it's not as though there isn't a steady stream of promotions.

On a related issue, I'm sure that no one here disagrees that the general standard of writing needs to be improved, both when it comes to the FAC process and reviews of the thousand or so existing FAs. Only today, the writer of a FA that was promoted just a few days ago (one that I didn't get around to reviewing, unfortunately) approached me for help in improving the prose, lest it end up here. It's kind of strange that that should happen, don't you think?

I accept Tim's concern that prose not become the sole business of the FARC process, and I don't want to regarded as an uncompromising or obsessive bull-terrier; however, I'm none too enthusiastic for going easy on prose here. Tony 07:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm equally concerned about referencing, and even for what some consider as "trivial" or "uncontested" information. In one recently FARC'd article about a controversial person, Wiki had bestowed a Master's degree upon a living person, and that information propagated throughout the internet.    That degree was not mentioned in the references, I've never found a reference for it, and to my knowledge, the person has no post-grad degree.  Even the seemingly insignificant should be referenced:  the Wiki entry on that person is number one on Google, and Wiki should not be bestowing a post-graduate degree upon a controversial public figure. The article had much bigger problems than lack of references (extensive POV), but it's an example of why even the "trivial" should be referenced, and older FAs should be held to current referencing standards.


 * In reply to Grafikm, in the time I've been here, I've not seen an article delisted solely on prose. Typically, articles which have prose problems seem to have other problems as well.


 * With regards to attempting to improve articles we nominate, I can see the extensive problems on Race, but if I attempt to fix them, I will probably make them worse, since the article covers a breadth of subjects I'm not familiar with. Even one original author I talked with explained how difficult it is to fix.  It shouldn't be up to me to fix it, just because I can see the problems.  Sandy 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"nominators should make an effort to improve their article" - why should I? i read 2 FAs expecting to find the "best of wikipedia" but was sorely disappointed (Coronation Street and Middle-earth). i read them because I want to find out about subjects I know little or nothing about. to prevent other readers assuming those articles are the "best", i nominated them for FAR. how am i supposed to "fix" something I dont know anything about? if i have a bad meal at a restaurant am i expected to cook it myself? Zzzzz 12:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No one said you have to start the article over again, but you certainly are expected to try some salt and pepper on it before you declare it unworthy (to take the meal metaphor further). If the nominations are about things that you could have done yourself, then why bother the entire restaurant? just pick off the pieces you don't like, mix the rice with the curry yourself, and other metaphors :)Maintain 06:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maintain, if you can give an example of an article currently on FAR that requires fixes we can attempt ourselves, please point it out, and I'll have a look at it. Thanks, Sandy 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, how about Economy of Africa? I'll admit I did not read it in depth, but the only objection Tony pointed out while nominating is "This article needs a good copy-edit to meet modern FA standards". So, it is only a text problem as far as I know. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  14:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the example; I just looked at it. It creates for me the same problem I found when I went over to try to help out on Sarajevo yesterday.  There is so much mangled prose on Sarajevo, that I would need to go to the original sources to figure out what some sentences are tying to say, and I dare not try to fix them without knowing what they are attempting to say.  I find the same thing on Economy of Africa; since it has no inline citations, how would I presume to edit its content?  An editor unknowledgeable in the area can do more harm than good, particularly when there are no references for guidance.  Sandy 16:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can take on any task here, you are just limited by the amount of time and effort you're willing to devote to it. In response to your hesitations on copy-editing I say that you should only do what you are comfortable doing (be bold). Don't try re-doing every sentence but read a section out loud and do whatever you can. In response to your volunteer call, how about looking through Right whale, an article that passed FAC two months ago and is now on the FARC list. You could convert the hyperlinks in the bodies of Billboard (advertising) and Economy of the Republic of Ireland into footnotes. Also, Billboard (advertising) has an issue raised about whether appropriate wikilinking is used. --Maintain 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zzzzz, maybe your standards for "best of Wikipedia" are a bit too high? (it is not an attack, AGF please). If you want, go check some FAs on other wikipedias. Even such big ones as Fr and de wikis have the same level of req (inline citations come to mind)... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  14:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think his standards are too high. I nominated Economy of Africa and Economy of India before we had this worthy discussion here on the need for nominators to pitch in and help, rather than take a passive role. Accordingly, I will contribute to the copy-editing of both of these articles. I think the point at issue here is that if someone identifies problems in an article, s/he should presumably have the skill/knowledge to at least contibute to the temporary article-improvement drive that FAR represents. Tony 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also don't think his standards are too high - the articles he cited don't exemplify wikipedia's best work. Despite this, I don't think someone who puts an FA up for review should have to try improve the article they nominated, but actually up to the people who supported the original FA nomination, people who seem so keen to save its FA status. Not everyone has the time to help improve these articles, and I think it's wrong of wiki to assume as such. Some articles need extensive, timely work. If wiki wishes to keep old FA's which haven't kept up standards at FA status just because it expects nominators to improve them, then it can go ahead. When users click on old FA's and blindly assume wiki's rather mediocre though, then that's life. Quality, not quantity - words people should remember. LuciferMorgan 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG
Getting kind of ... huge. 23 + 13. Tony 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what did you expect? Now that people can list articles without actually asking for a de-featuring outright (and without taking the associated flak), the number of listings will obviously go up.  Kirill Lokshin 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not shoot the nominators: these articles have problems.
 * Per some of the commentary above, I've spent time in some of them, and find problems bigger than what we can address here. I am going to persist a bit longer in putting out the notifications, and hope that people will start to get involved in improving these articles.
 * As an example, I found that the FAC nomination for Right whale was the last activity of the nominator, who seems to have left Wiki right after the article was nominated. If no one is watching even brand new FAs, what can we do?
 * It may be too soon to float a new idea, but no matter how many notices I've put out, some of them are simply getting no action, and are too problematic for us to address. Should we talk about moving faster on articles that are apparently abandoned, and have problems we can't fix?  Sandy 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I say that keeping an article's FA status doesn't end with the promotion, but requires the commitment of at least one person, and preferably more than one. The once-promoted always-promoted belief should be countered, both here and in the FAC room, where there are probably too many nominations and, IMV, too many promotions. People should be made aware of the need to maintain an FA, like a garden. If you don't water it, it can die. Updating our articles as the knowledge-base and WP's standards change is one of the powerful, dynamic features of WP that other encyclopedias lack.


 * I have no problem in using the ultimate "teeth" of the review process where articles are not supported by editorial effort and/or argument under the commentary headings here. I believe that this view is not inconsistent with the view that a successful FA that doesn't proceed to FARC is the ideal. Tony 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The facts are sad but true: I have all but given up on featured articles. Filling in redlinks is far more fun. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedians leave. User:Lord Emsworth has all but gone, and so there are more than 50 FAs waiting to be FARCed; User:Worldtraveller is teetering on the brink, and another 20+ FAs go to rack and ruin; User:Filiocht has been away for months, and bang go another 15 FAs.  There - getting on for 10% of the FAs all but abandoned in three fell swoops.  Lord knows how many others listed at List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations are still around.
 * 2) People are happier to criticise others' efforts than spend some time and effort, and put their own necks on the line, by trying to address the problems that they have just identifed. It is easy on FAC: the nominator is obliged to address the issues, or the FAC fails.  On FARC, despite the change to "review", no-one is obliged to sort the problems out.  As an example, right whale is not a basket case - it just needed someone to address the inconsistency and a light copyedit.  How difficult is that?

the reason there is so many FAR candidates these days is because of the ongoing Wikipedia Version_0.5_FA_Review, which is looking at every FA for potential inclusion on the CD. so there will be an increased spike for a while. Zzzzz 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thx for the heads up there Zz. Regarding the rest of it, there is no easy answer. That the individual who worked on an FA may leave is the flip-side of the open editing dynamism; people should indeed be made aware of maintanence, but there's nothing we can do about user attrition. That it's easier to criticize than to act is as plain as day. No, we shouldn't shoot the nominators but perhaps we can ask more of them/restrict more in nominating. Perhaps, "a nominator should not have more than one article in each of the sections at any one time. This is to encourage nominators to focus on helping to ensure their nominations are closed successfully." Or is that silly?


 * Re placing notes, as Sandy as helpfully done just about everywhere imaginable, the user talk of the original FAC nominator and those active in the article history are still the best bet. One other thought is to bring the notice of the FAR to the article space itself, rather than just talk. We don't presently do that even for FAC but of course we do it for AfD so it isn't totally unprecedented. Marskell 20:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that last idea; will they allow it? On the practical side, I've been messaging a few good editors with variations on the following:


 * Hi ...


 * I noticed your contributions to ... and wondered whether you'd be interested in dropping into WP:FAR occasionally (or often) to encourage, prod, critique, and—when the crunch comes—to declare "Keep" or "Remove"..


 * The new FAR process is now being swamped with nominations (currently 23 in FAR and 13 in FARC), and the four or five regulars are finding it difficult to service the needs of such a large process. The ideal is to encourage the guardians of the many substandard FAs to fix them; sometimes this happens, but all too often, a nomination is met with disinterest by those you'd have thought would be keen.


 * The contribution of more good reviewers there, particularly those who are focused on good writing, would have a powerful impact on the FA culture in WP.

Tony 09:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR template
Why does the FAR template say "to ensure it meets the standards of style, prose, and completeness of a featured article", leaving out some mention of references, inline citations, or accuracy?? Sandy 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to tweak the language of the template. How do you get there? Tony 03:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to Template:FAR Sandy 12:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just | tweaked the wording a little: everyone OK about it?


 * Re Sandy's comment, the template is already too long. They're generally summative, not specific. The link to the standards is there. Marskell 15:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as well that I shortened it by a few words, then. Tony 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fine with me: just raised the question, as I wasn't aware of earlier discussions of the wording.  Sandy 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It still mentions some standards and not others, implying (wrongly) that the aspects mentioned are in some sense the "main" standards and the others aren't obligatory. Having a link to the standards, per Marskell, is surely enough, and is more logical. I've shortened it some more. Please let's keep it concise. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Bishonen's is much better. Tony 01:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

passive nominators
At critical stages, I think that as a matter of policy we should prod dump-and-run nominators to return and offer their assessment of the proceedings that they instigated. Tony 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Critical stages? After a week has passed?  When/if it moves from FAR to FARC? Just before "time is up" on FAR and FARC?


 * Also, should I continue notifying the Projects? It does now seem to have generated at least some response in some cases, and I was pleased to see that a recent nomination included notifications of the Projects, so maybe the idea will take hold and I won't have to be the one doing it.


 * Also, I just did a check on editors who have multiple nominations: as of now, Todor, Rlevse, Zzzz, Pagrashtak, and Tony.  We know Tony is following up; I didn't have time to check on the others. (??)  Sandy 17:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Had I known we'd be swamped, I'd have held off nominating. Probably at one week after nomination is a good time to prompt a nominator. Tony 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See my comment under Helping above on this (currently last one there) plange 02:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, heck, Tony, only a few weeks ago we were worried that FAR was too slow, so you got some nominations going: hindsight is 20-20, and all that. :-) I'm leaving notes to the noms we haven't heard from, except in the cases that obviously have a lot of involvement.  Sandy 02:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Project notices
I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to keep track of all of these. Biographies let me know they've set up a separate means of notification here, the Medicine group has set up a page here, and the Novels group told me they want to be notified here. Have I bit off more than I can chew, how can we simplify this, and/or should we/could we set up a sidebar to keep track of these? I guess the bigger question is what our role should be wrt notices? Am I on the right track? Sandy 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As always Sandy I am here to help/save you :) I have created a "template" on my user space (User:Joelr31/Notifications) for this purpose. I have placed it tentatively on this page but maybe we could move it to a more appropiate place if necessary. Joelito (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Un monton de gracias !! (Thanks :-)  I'll watch how it goes over the coming weeks.  Is it OK if I edit that template on your user space to add to it as needed, or should I copy it to my own space ?  Sandy 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fell free to edit it. I even left an edit button for easy editing. Joelito (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very user friendly :-) I'll add things to the template as needed.  Thanks again !  Sandy 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being dumb, but does that mean that an auto-note is posted if you insert something on the template? What to insert? And in any case, is there a list of WikiProjects? Tony 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's just intended as a quick reference to where manual notes should be placed. There's a full list of WikiProjects here, but it tends to be out of date (and most of them are catatonic anyway). Kirill Lokshin 02:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kirill. So we should have a standard, brief text with the template, I guess. Tony 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are a little confused Tony. The template I created is the one you see at the top of this page below the archives. There isn't a template to notify WikiProjects. Sandy has been leaving a short standarized notice (plain text) at the WikiProjects since we concluded that a template was not necessary. Joelito (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a sample of what I've been leaving:
 * Olympic Flame is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.
 * I have hardly used the list of projects: instead, I go to What links here, and search on Project.  For countries, I also notify Regional notice boards.  The list above is for those projects that have gotten back to me with specific fora for notification. Sandy 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, here's the master text I've been sending to contributors where the process is maturing in the face of insufficient interest, as a complement to Sandy's initial notice.


 * Ooh, time to be pedantic. A few corrections:
 * Hi there—name of article is currently a the Featured Article Removal Candidate. The consensus is that the attempts to improve the article since its nomination for FA review have been insufficient.


 * I note that you have contributed to the article, and I wonder whether you're able to assist at this crucial stage. It would be a pity if the article were to lose its featured article status after all of the work that was put into having it promoted.
 * Kirill Lokshin 05:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill—better, except that "you'd be" was better as "you're". I've changed it back in the new version, and removed the previous version for simplicity's sake. Tony 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a ceiling on noms
Perhaps we should simply limit the page to, say, 12 or 15 reviews at any one time. For further additions, the review can be delisted and the nominator gently informed to wait until things clear up. Marskell 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about this proposal! Tony 04:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a blanket ceiling, can we strengthen the text dealing with the obligations of nominators? Tony 05:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Much like FAC commenters aren't obliged to help make an article better, FARC nominators shouldn't be expected to fix an article, all you can really hope is that they make a reasonable argument about the flaws in an article so that someone might be able to fix them. There are a lot of FAs that don't meet the citeria and they should be removed, that is what this page is for.


 * If you're worried about the level of participation in the review process - perhaps the review part of the process could be transcluded (like FAC noms) on this page and the article talk page. FAR needs better promotion - could the project look at getting a more detailed blurb in the signpost each week? Mabye a namspace template like that of WP:AID (IDRIVEcur) could be stuck on the articles during their 2 week review to draw more reviewers/fixers.--Peta 06:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I had suggested a namespace template, which seems a useful step. We could have one for both FAC and FAR. Marskell 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to the namespace template. Meta-data templates, which are of no use to the reader, should be placed on the talk page. I am also opposed to the ceiling. We have to think of better ways to deal with the rising number of reviews. Joelito (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, what then? This process invites dump-and-run and majority are already going through without serious input. Marskell 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no good ideas yet but I'm working on it :) Joelito (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Two issues may be relevant here.


 * Is this an unusual spike of nominations? Can we look forward to a settling of the system after a month or two?
 * I see that there's an increase in activity by contributors and reviewers, which is what we want.

Perhaps Peta is right: there are a lot of FAs that don't meet the criteria, and that's what the page is here for. The FAR process has been added to increase the likelihood that nominations will be improved, and to slow down the process. Maybe we shouldn't be too concerned ...? Tony 15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the nomination count is low right now. We're finally reaching the point of no return as far as inline citations are concerned; as soon as we hit that, a few hundred FAs that don't have them will be liable to show up here at any time. Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Looks as though the process will be a factory for forcing this issue, which is relatively mechanical. The problem will be that inline citations will rarely be the only problem: we're sure to identify others. Hmmm. What to do? Tony 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we shouldn't be too concerned ...?  Didn't want to be the first to say it, but I'm not concerned: I think the process is working fine. Articles that have no editors overseeing them or working on them are losing featured status, while articles with involved editors are generally finding status preserved.  There are a lot of deteriorated FAs out there:  the process is doing what it should.  I was somewhat worried about the amount of manual work I was doing in notifying Projects, but even on that score, as the Projects realize that FAs are being reviewed, the interested ones will probably kick in on their own.  Sandy 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The count in itself is not the problem. I have no problem removing thirty-odd a month without in-line citations given that even that pace will require a year-and-a-half to get through the list. It's just that we still don't have the critical mass of people to really go over things as regularly as would be ideal. It would be nice if the attention devoted to Asperger's or Sarajevo could be devoted to the majority. Marskell 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you said, Tim. So one of the nice things about putting work into keeping this process running is that, from time to time, you get to decide to make a gift to an article, and/or to its contributors, by directly assisting. Lucky article and contributors. It's the same issue for reviewers in the FAC room. But I'm not going to feel bad about the ones I don't help; we're under no obligation to help any. Tony 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Inline Citations
As it has been mentioned above, there are perhaps hundreds of FAs without adequate inline citations. This "FA criteria" was added in May 2005 (along with the requirement of a References section). The carefully worded WP:FA? says "complemented where appropriate by inline citations"; it is not a requirement itself, but only where and if it is appropriate. To help manage FAR with nominations based solely on "no inline citations", could we require that the article have tags before it goes to FAR? Most nominations come with examples from the text about why it, in the nominator's opinion, does not satisfy the criteria. I see this as providing examples to back up the "no line citations" charge. I can help add citations if someone helps with tags. --Maintain 05:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds worth considering to me. It's in everyone's interests that the FAR/C processes be seen to be fair and reasonable. Tony 06:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It does sound reasonable, but every time I've gone through an article in trouble, there are too many fact tags to add. The ones that are worth FARing are usually so bad that just adding the fact tags is a huge task, and there are often many more problems. (Again, I handled this in the case of the medical articles I'm watching by notifying the Medicine Project a long time ago, they've not touched the articles, and they shouldn't be surprised when they go to FAR.) Sandy 12:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can always just tag the section rather than individual sentences if the latter is too laborious. Obviously, a majority are not going to get all the citations they need but we've seen Sarajevo go from 0 to 30 and Phishing go from 30 to 60, so it's not impossible. Marskell 12:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I usually end up doing that. I just wanted to point out that it's usually more than an issue of just finding a few missing sources.  Sandy 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How about for an article to be moved from FAR to FARC with "2(c) no inline citations" as a listed concern then there must be at least one tag in the article? -- Maintain 01:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Backlog
I just arrived here through Category:Wikipedia backlog, but am unclear on what precisely the backlog is and what an eager volunteer might do to help out with it (as I'm sure I saw such a volunteer pass by just a minute ago...) Perhaps a note to this affect should be added after the backlog template message? --jwandersTalk 01:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Guide to reviewers under construction
Slim Virgin is calling for assitance in her writing of a page directed at reviewers of FACs. At this stage, I'm supporting the idea because raising the profile of reviewing in that place has got to be a good move. I've suggested that the FAR/C review process be included, since it's almost identical in the skills that it requires. What do people think? WP:REVIEW Tony 10:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) PS I'm a little concerned that the guidelines may end up constraining the review process, beyond WP's rules on civility. Tony 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Further comment. Now I can see where that little project is going. The agenda, which IMV every regular reviewer here and in the FAC room should strenuously resist, appears to be to impose a set of rules that will restrict what reviewers may say, how they say it, and will prescribe what skills/background reviewers must have, and certain processes they must go through to make comments.


 * The push for this is coming from several contributors to the FAC Hilary Putnam, who, IMV, have been extremely uncivil to me and several other reviewers. Perhaps they're letting off steam; I believe that their motives have nothing to do with improving the process. On the contrary, if these guidelines are taken at all seriously, they will result in a considerably degraded outcome here and at FAC.


 * There's a place on the talk page where you can have your say. Tony 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur that it is an effort that started out with good intentions, but is heading the wrong direction, based on one extremely unfortunate FAC, in which the nominator and supporters were beyond uncivil and into personal attack territory. If the guidelines continue in the direction they appear headed, the result may be a lowering of FA standards.  Sandy 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But this still has a long way to go before it's even an official guideline, doesn't it? --jwandersTalk 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does, but I don't think it's as bad as you're imagining. If properly written, it should provide a consistent and transparent set of guidelines to make the review of featured article candidates, and featured articles that are being re-evaluated, consistent across the board. Reviewers and nominators will both know what's expected, which will hopefully lead to fewer disputes, and fewer articles being submitted for FA status before they're ready. Please review the proposal for yourselves at WP:REVIEW, though note that it's not finished. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of FA
I'm relatively new to this process and realise the process itself is rather new, but I get the sense that editors are very reluctant to demote a featured article. I understand the rational behind this reluctance: other editors have had to put a lot of work into the article to get it through the grueling FAC process, and since it's passed, there's a strong tendancy to feel that that gold star ought to mean something. But as Wikipedia is constantly changing, it's not surprising that an article which previously reached our pinnacle of excellence might slip back down again, especially if the editor who strived to get it there has left or, as in many current cases, the citeria for excellence themselves have changed.

Though I understand the reasons behind the reluctance to demote articles, I believe it is misplaced. If featured article promotion is intended to hilight Wikipedia's best work, shouldn't an article be demoted as soon as a consensus is reached that the article is no longer up to the current standards? For the same reasons it must be difficult for articles to initially reach featured status, I think it ought to be equally difficult for those articles to keep it.

Part of these opinions come from the work I've done recently at Good articles. For those who aren't familiar with it, any user can nominate an article as a "good article candidiate", after which any other single user (who hasn't previously worked on the article) decides whether or not the article meets the good article criteria, and "passes" or "fails" the article on that decision. I bring this up here because I expect nearly all of the article nominated for FAR would have failed such a good article review—in other words, we are reluctant to demote articles from featured status that likely would not even qualify as good.

As I'm new to the FAR/C process, I'm not suggesting any specific changes, merely hoping to open a discussion. --jwandersTalk 11:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * J, thanks for your message, and your input to this room.


 * The bureacrat in me is a little suspicious of the potential for arbitrariness in the GA process. I take your point about reluctance to demote here; perhaps that's going to dissipate very soon—a number of customers are getting to their use-by date in this process. This is particularly relevant to the FAs that appear to have no committed guardians. It's as though the badge is for life.


 * The reason that a slower process has been developed for FARCing is the hope that this will provide the time and the motivation to improve FAs, without demoting them. I think it's working quite well, thus far, but will be interested in your further opinions when you've seen it all at work for a little longer. We need to show WP that it's fair, and that due process is observed. Tony 12:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let a thousand flowers bloom. Some are reluctant to remove, some not. I think that's a good thing and I agree with Tony that on the whole this process is working. If everyone were trigger-happy I wonder if we'd have made the "saves" we have; check the archive for June to see trends emerging, BTW.


 * Re GA, I think the process should be scrapped or radically overhauled. It's never made sense to me. Long conversations with WorldTraveller (whose present absence is terrible) have led to some fruitful ideas—that GA could become a Featured Article Drive, for instance, or that the GA tag would only be used for just-past-stubs (i.e., articles that are not featurable due to length but still deserve recognition). Barring something like this, I would like to see GA shut down and all the person hours spent there, spent on FAs instead. It's a needless splitting of contributor work. Marskell 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say we should work on that idea (shutting down GA and encouraging more participation on FA), but there's probably too much else going on right now. Sandy 14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, that makes a lot of sense, Tim. Where to raise the issue if there's more support here: FAC? Raul? Or, dare I say it, GA? Tony 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see this isn't going to make me many more friends around here, but I'm really not sure it's right to talk about "shutting down GA" solely for division of labour purposes... I mean, obviously the people working on GA feel it's the best use of their time, just like those working on FA—and clean-up, copyright, mediation, and even making flashy new userboxes—feel that those the best use of their time.  If they're not hurting anything, there's no reason they shouldn't carry on (and if they are hurting something, yes, do bring it up on their talk page). If you do succeed in shutting down GA, the users that worked on setting it up aren't likely to just start working on FA instead, but are much more likely to simply leave Wikipedia (or worse!). --jwandersTalk 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I started researching my new article I haven't talked for some time here but I think it's time. My opinion is that the FA process is broken and we must fix it. I must stress that the process and not individual aspects are broken. For example, WP:FAC even with all the recent commotion still serves as a proper filter to promote our best work. However, the same cannot be said of eveything that goes before reaching FAC.

I believe the problem started with GA. GA gave people a lower standard to shoot for. Now we don't need to strive for excellence, we just need to be above average. If you fail to get FA status you get a consolation prize, people get to conform. The establishment of GA was just the beginning. Then came the fights between GA and FA which led to a division among editors. This futher weakened the process. Soon after WP:PR was deserted. No feedback is gained by applying for peer review. Then the last straw came with the streghtening of WikiProjects. WikiProjects are extremely useful but by conducting their own article reviews they further diluted the centralized article review process. Granted, some WikiProjects such as Military History do marvelous reviews and provide a constant stream of excellent featured articles but others get too focused on their "thing" that they fail to produce articles that everyone can enjoy. Furthermore, another review process is currently in the works, WP:RFF. If this process becomes policy then the reviewer pool will be diluted even more and we will be left with a very unorganized reviewing process.

The question is, how do we fix it? I do not have a definitive answer but the solution should be obvious. We must merge everything, scrap all and start anew. GA, PR, RFF, WikiProject reviews, all must be merged. It is my opinion that a centralized review process will streghten the FA process but only by working together will we achieve this. Joelito (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe most of Joe's analysis is spot-on, particularly about how GA has weakened standards (it's basically a pat on the back without the FA rigour).


 * Re some other comments: Tony, I'm not sure how best to raise the concern. Raul has said to me he doesn't like GA, but I don't think he has the time for an extended scrap over it. Nor do we need a scrap. I know good editors are attached to GA; the question would be how to get people on the same page to avoid parallel processes (and I mean parallel in the pejorative sense—running in the same direction but not usefully connecting). However it is to be brought up more widely, we should have a clear alternative in place to begin with. I'll try and dig up some back and forth I had with WT to bring an idea together. Marskell 18:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Joelito, thanks for the extensive history. It helps a newbie :-)  We need to deal with that other issue:  it is sapping too much time and energy, and as far as I can tell from a read of 3 talk pages, the only supporters are SV and three editors who have never been involved in FAC or FAR.  Considering that mess on FAC, is this a good time to raise issues about GA? Sandy 18:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've raised some of my own concerns with the GA process on the GAC talk page; as I've been contributing to GA myself recently, they may be better received coming from me than from editors involved in a, dare I say, "competing" project. Joelito, I agree with a lot of the points you made above, especially that the whole project would ultimately be better served by a unified article review & assessment process.  The challenge is to find the compromises that will get everyone on board with that idea.
 * In a way, this leads back into the point I originaly raised above: It seems FAR/C is trying to both help articles which have slipped below FA status reattain it and evaluate if they've managed to do so during their time here. In the interest of unifying assessment, I can't help but wonder if the evaluation part of that ought to be passed back along to FAC? --jwandersTalk 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But reviewing existing FAs, encouraging improvements, and determining whether they should be demoted, is quite a different matter from a promotions process. These would have to be separated structurally if "unified", don't you think. So we'd be back to square one. After all, this page already closely allied to the FA process. Tony 02:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reviewing and encouraging are different processes and entirely valid, but once an article's goes to FARC, there's already consensus that it's slipped below the FA threshold, otherwise we'd have taken it out of the process at the FAR stage. The FARC process then involves listing the critisms which must be addressed and judging whether or not they have been. If the article answers the critisms, it leaves with a gold star; if not, it doesn't. Isn't this process is all but identical to FAC? --jwandersTalk
 * JWanders, what change would you envisage, then? I can't see how it would be any different. Tony 08:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rollback question
The issue has come up twice now (Sarajevo and Race), so I wanted to understand our role. It was suggested early on in its review that a revert would have been the best way to help Sarajevo. The same has been suggested on Featured article review/Race. The last time I got involved in trying to help an article under review, I paid a high price (in terms of personal comments aimed at my involvement). What should be the role of reviewers here with respect to reverts? Should we leave it alone, do it, support it? Does getting involved compromise us as independent reviewers? It's sad to see an article go down the drain, but is it our role to help? Sandy 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, my feelings are:
 * one common problem might be that the previous version will throw up different problems, which may not be obvious before detailed scrutiny;
 * we might get our fingers burnt rolling back ourselves, without at least one or two of the contributors on-side—if they feel strongly, why don't they do it themselves?
 * articles just become normal WP articles, probably well above average in quality, when they're demoted—not a bad drain to go down! Tony 15:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the voice of experience. But, this one really has gone down the drain.  It was a decent (albeit unreferenced) article:  now it's a mess.  Would it be stepping over the line to suggest on the FAR that I would "support" a revert?   Or should I leave it alone:  I'm not in the market for any more burnt fingers.  Sandy 15:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could put a proposal on the page, similar to a move proposal I guess. If there's no discussion (or a consensus for rollback) after about 5 days, our fingers should be safe. I'd be happy to make up some templates for this if people want to go forward with it.--jwandersTalk 16:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear others' ideas on the idea of a template, since we're likely to encounter this issue again. (By the way, the other tricky thing in this case is that, even with a rollback, we may still have to FARC it as unreferenced.)  Sandy 16:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If any article has gone downhill, I would support reverting it to a better state. I doubt that all changes since the earlier version are negative, though: I would want to be sure that any positive additions were added back after the revert.


 * It would definitely be a good idea to publicise the idea on the relevant article's talk page to try to get a consensus for a substantial revert. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have not been involved in the edit history I would not jump into reverting; there's too many little things you might not know about. Supporting the general idea of a revert in the FAR (if you've decently compared the two versions) shouldn't be a problem, however. Nor does it have to be total. Pull up both versions and take the best of both. I don't think it's ever a good idea to, literally, pull up a six-month old version and save it as is. Marskell 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that makes sense. It's more of a "merge with previous version" than anything else.  That fits with my template idea above; it's just (yet another) variation on the standard merge template.  This might also help answer the question about wether to demote or not: we demote and add the proposed merger with a note saying once the merger has been completed the article can be relisted on FAR.  Thoughts? (Threw together a sample of the template I'm envisioning here. It's not pretty, as my graphic design skills aren't much to talk about, but that can be improved.) --jwandersTalk 09:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I'm not up for another controversy, and I don't want my fingers burnt.  I guess Race will go by the wayside.  Maybe someone else will want to sugggest a revert on their talk page. I'm not brave enough right now.  Sandy 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dylan
The editors seem to be hard at work over there, which is a welcome change to the FARs that get no attention. I've given talk page commentary a couple of times, and editors have moved quickly on my suggestions, so others might want to comment on the talk page. Sandy 21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Airing an issue: "friends" of FAs
I want to raise an issue that hasn't been aired before to my knowledge: whether FARCs are bereft of "friends" or are likely to enjoy ongoing maintenance by commited WPians. It partly comes down to the stability of the topic. Indian pottery is likely to be relatively static, but Economy of India and Photonics are likely to be dynamic and thus constantly changing: I think this should be a factor in considering whether to remove or retain borderline cases. We need to put our minds at rest that a dynamic topic has friends, such that it won't end up back here in a year or two.

I have in mind Economy of India at the moment. Tony 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But all friends of articles are fairweather on Wikipedia. I don't know if we can ever put our minds at rest (certainly not looking ahead a year) because the people working on an article can take off at any point. If its up-to-date at the moment of the review, that's the most we can ask IMO. Marskell 06:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism
The FAR for anarcho-capitalism was closed today, but many of the involved editors have not yet had a chance to add their thoughts and votes on the matter. The process is not very clear, and I have to admit that I am a bit confused. I'd like to request that the review be opened for a few more days, in order to make sure that everybody can have input. It's a controversial article, so the more legitimacy there is in the process, the better. Personally, I do not see any harm in a minor extension, but it's quite possible that I'm missing something. --AaronS 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Joelito closed the FAR appropriately. Featured article review/Anarcho-capitalism Specifically, I noted a month ago, in my first entry to the FAR, that the nomination never spelled out actual problems with the article vis-a-vis FA criteria.  A month is long enough.  Sandy 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But the opening nomination spelled it out criterion by criterion... and the ensuing discussion revealed much. While I understand your position on the matter, I do not understand what the harm in an extension would be. So far, no good argument has been presented as to why we should not allow all of the people who have just been notified a few more days to consider the matter. Further, there was no warning that the review was about to be closed. This may not be necessary, but considering the number of editors involved, it would have been nice.
 * Such a contentious article is worth the attention. While I can't imagine any harm in leaving the discussion open a bit longer, aside from extending the FAR page longer (which is a minor inconvenience), I can imagine several harms in closing it, despite my objections: several good-faith editors in good standing will (1) view it as illegitimate, (2) be discouraged, and (3) feel ignored. The scale seems to be heavily tipped in one direction.
 * Sandy, I do understand why you feel that the FAR has been about personalities, as opposed to content. Keep in mind, though, that throughout the review, the process was disrupted by two well-known banned users, Thewolfstar and RJII. Trust me, even the article's most partisan editors typically get along quite cordially.
 * This is not about triumphing over other editors, it is about making this article the best it can be. At this moment, substantial work needs to be done, per the FAR. --AaronS 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything controversial about the article. Maybe the question whether the anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is controversial to some people but article is written in a neutral way, presenting both views. If you are only interested in making the article about anarcho-capitalism as good as it can be, you are free to edit it. You will not make it better by additionally poisoning the atmosphere between editors. -- Vision Thing -- 16:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add that procedurally it was a sound close. The article had been up around 35 days and there was a keep consensus (or at least there was not a remove consensus, which = default keep). Please, no one should feel ignored or discouraged. The FAR did help it—much was said and done. It is a good article and, IMO and that of others, FA worthy. The fact is, we can't leave it things up here indefinitely because the page needs to be scaleable. But I think this one was sound, and I hope involved editors continue to work. Marskell 21:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul's removal of Bulbasaur
I've just left this note on his page:

I'm not in on the specific issues, but perhaps a note on the FAR discussion page explaining why you removed this listing? The edit comment needs elaboration. Tony 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony asked me to comment on why I removed the Bulbasaur FAR. I've been watching this particular nomination with some interest because not a single objection brought up was a significant one, and (more importantly) not a single one is new since the FA nomination. This FAR nomination appears to me to be a transparent attempt to rehash the FAC nom, which this page is *not* for. Raul654 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did the same thing with the Iranian peoples FAR. We do have the comment about not nomming things immediately after they've been promoted. Marskell 05:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, Bulbasaur was promoted in March, which is why I asked for an explanation. Raul, I'd have preferred a comment here and/or on the Bulbasaur FAR page before acting unilaterally; this is not a slight on you, but arises from a concern that such actions may be used to justify similar moves by other people, where consensus here may not support it. The process needs to be transparent. Tony 08:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought my edit summary did a satisfactory job of explaing my reasoning. If it would calm your fears of others doing it, then I'll make it clear that my decision was done under the auspices of my FA-director position. Raul654 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that your position were understated when you take actions. This is not a personal matter in the least—I just think that the consensus-based approach works best when hierarchy is just in the background. And by rationing explicit mention of the directorship, when you really do need to weigh in, it will mean more to the punters. Tony 08:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't involved in Bulbasaur, but I'm confused. Our instructions say "Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances)."  Bulbasaur was older than 3 months: do we need to update our instructions?  As I re-read the FAR, it didn't appear to be headed for FARC anyway, so I'm not really understanding the issue.  Also, regarding "FA-director position", I'm not understanding if there is separation between FAC and FAR ??  Sandy 17:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bulbasaur was in fact listed in the FARC section when I removed it. And just so we're clear - it was promoted only four months ago, after a long and contentious FAC discussion. This FAR is, as I said before, a transparent attempt to rehash the long and contentious FAC discussion that bulbasaur caused, which is not acceptable. And no, in terms of my position as FA director, there is no seperation between FAC and FAR. Raul654 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In removing the minor/major distinction one thing that became less easy was deciding if things really need to go down to FARC. I just move them down automatically to make sure that base is covered. If Raul or anyone wants to remove something early, perhaps post the Status question about whether it needs to go to FARC and leave it for a day. This shows the nominator it was removed with process. Marskell 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marskell, that's a helpful instruction. I've been posting Status as a question, to see what others have to say, in cases where nothing is happening, or a lot is happening, or there is no clear direction.  In the case of Bulbasaur, since there were no Remove votes and no strong indication towards delisting, we probably could have been done with it if someone had posted a query.  I guess I should keep doing what I've been doing (checking status), and hope that I'm not misusing my time by trying to help out here.  Sandy 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, then, two or three days' grace should be the norm when it comes to deciding whether to move down or close a FAR. Whoever is managing the process at the time might insert a standard notice at the bottom of the review commentary asking for reasons that the article should not be moved to the FARC list. Tony 08:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We can make the notice a matter of course. But per earlier discussions, those absent in-line citations should always go down. These shouldn't be default kept due to lack of commentary. Marskell 10:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha
Can anyone tell me if there are other WikiProjects that should be notified for Memory Alpha? Sandy 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

More than one nom
We discussed whether a nominator should have more than one article on FAR at a time, but I don't recall a firm conclusion. I haven't yet put out any notifications on Omnipotence Paradox, because we also have Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace. What should I do? Sandy 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really see the need for a hard limit here, as the nominator's role on FAR is not nearly as labor-intensive as the nominator's role on FAC. Kirill Lokshin 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

timing
I've become aware that articles are spending more time at the doctor's than anticipated when the lead text was framed. I wonder whether it should be modified to reflect our experience. I see nothing wrong with longer stays here, given that contributors sometimes have to be prompted to help.

In addition, I hope that criteria listed at the top of "FARC commentaries" don't preclude declarations of "Remove" on the basis of other criteria. If I discover that 1a, IMV, is not met, I'd like to be able to declare "Remove" even if this hasn't been mentioned during the review. Any thoughts? Tony 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a more pressing concern, as highlighted in the thread under my bulbasaur removal comment, is that we need clearer criteria for what goes onto FAR and which reviews are simply closed. As it now stands, I think everthing goes to FAR, which was not the intention. Raul654 05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean "everything goes to FARC"? We have had articles not go to FARC, and we have others headed that direction (it looks like Free will is coming up to snuff quickly).  Sometimes moving them to FARC is what gets more editors involved:  Yes, Tony, I agree we should give them more time in FARC once we see progress.  (For example, only yesterday I noticed the reference problems in Korean names, and an editor got on them as soon as I pointed it out.)  Some of them don't really get action until they are under the threat of FARC. I'm not sure what Raul means by "clearer criteria for what goes on to FARC":  anything that still doesn't meet the FA criteria goes on to FARC.  ???  Sandy 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it as a very simple process. If the concerns are addressed while the article is in review then the FAR is closed. If not, if goes to FARC. Joelito (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Tony 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested rules for closure or...
...further FAR obsessing from User:Marskell. I have discussed with Joel a little more about what to do with FARCs that have few comments and have gone overtime on the page. Here are four scenarios with suggestive guidelines:


 * Three or more FARC comments with consensus = Keep or remove, depending
 * Three or more without consensus = Default keep
 * Fewer than three where inline citations are absent = Default remove
 * Fewer than three where inline citations are present = Default keep

Allowing a default remove for those without cites even if there is little commentary is based on the previous consensus that we need to slowly but surely remove these and that they shouldn't be default kept simply due to lack of interest.

Of course, it's easy to write a simple list like this and it isn't so neat and tidy in practice. There will still be some discretion involved in closure and we should continue to go out of our to poke people for work/comments. As a caveat to all: Always leave review open if work is on-going. That speaks for itself and I think we're all agreed on it.

Any thoughts? Marskell 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that the end of August is a busy time (vacation period, or back to school) for lots of folks. Sandy 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My theory is that there is an excuse for every time of year and thus an excuse for none of them. You could argue that in August all of our teenage admins have more free time with no school and ought to devote some of it to reviewing FAs :). Marskell 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, ok, I don't know where everyone is. My excuse, in particular, for not reviewing those two articles is that I know nothing of that whole "in world" thingie applying to literature articles, so don't know how to review them.  (I also avoid the computer game FARs :-)  If someone will tell me how to review those articles, I could give it a shot.  Sandy 21:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your proposal looks fine to me: no inline cites shouldn't be kept.  Sandy 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I currently use a simpler method to close FARs. Concerns addressed? Keep. Not addressed? Remove. Minimum votes for closure? 3. Not enough votes? Leave longer, contact people who commmented but have not voted. Joelito (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What we desperately need is more reviewers. The question si how do we recruit more people? Joelito (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Joel, but as I've asked you: no comments arrive, what to do? Of course it is at root "addressed = keep", "not addressed = remove". But not all of them are going to be like that. We could just say "ah well, contact three FAR watchers to throw on a few token removes," but that's no good.


 * To put the thought experiment more simply: a review is up two weeks past the two week deadline and there is literally no comment beyond the nomination. What do you propose to do with it? Marskell 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For those tough ones it's a case by case basis. For example, The Giver review is a tough one. No comments on FARC, concerns raised by nominator are valid but could be considered WP:POINT by some. No one has replied on the WikiProject novels. So what can we do? Easy, we must review it ourselves. Nothing more to do. It would not be fair to de-feature it because one person thinks it's not an FA. However it should not be kept with a proper review. So, we (Tony, Sandy, you and I, and maybe Maintain - the regulars) have to sacrifice and give from our time and keep FAR alive when it cannot maintain itself. Joelito (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't disagree with you at all about putting in time and I should also say I don't think this is anything fatal. I think FAR has been great recently—there's been some very excellent work done prompted by the reviews. Naturally, a large percentage have been "no inline citations, clear it out of here", but a significant minority have gone from not FA standard back up to standard, which is as much as we can hope for.


 * I'm just wiki-lawyering a bit because I think we need rules in the absence of individuals. That is, we cannot rely on "Sandy will always tell us to move to FARC" or "Tony will always CE the lead." Either things get removed or they get kept in A, B, C situation, based on X, Y, Z criteria. So, for instance, my comment on The Giver (which I noticed too and partly got me thinkin' about this) would be: if nothing happens in the next two days, it's default keep. The page has to keep moving. Marskell 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tim, I hope you don't mind: I tweaked a wording in your suggestion at the top. Some queries:
 * By "comments", do you mean just Keep/Remove declarations, or Comments too?
 * When there are three "comments", is two-to-one a consensus, or are you referring to unanimity in these cases?
 * So if there are just two Removes and no inline citation problem, it's retained? Or two Keeps and an inline citation problem, and it's removed? Not sure about that. I'd be inclined to leave the listing until there are three or more (Keeps/Removes). And perhaps whether the original concerns (1) were reasonable, and (2) have been resolved, should be in the equation (Joel's point).

What would help enormously would be a notice somewhere (at the top of this page?) where the titles of articles that have had to be extended or that have been in FARC for more than a certain time are listed. That would draw my attention, and I'd be more likely to give them priority. The existence of the notice could be promulgated to the outer band of reviewers (those who just drop in occasionally—Rebecca, Petaholmes, Peirigilll and others). I can see why potential reviewers are turned off by the size of the list. "Where would I start? I haven't got two hours to go through them all." I'll put a sample at the top, temporarily, for your comments. Tony 02:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Tony 02:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So, how about this "urgents" box, which could appear at the top of this page, and by simply copying and pasting could appear on the talk page of interested reviewers, if they wish to have the convenience. A maximum of five (prefer three) so as not to overwhelm? Thanks to Joel's notification box, on which I based this one: it surely needs tweaking, coz I'm a computer buffoon; please improve it if you can. One problem is that if you insert text directly underneath the box, it's included in the box. Tony 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did mean keep/remove declarations.
 * Personally, I would not consider 2-1 consensus. To close with three delarations I would expect unanimity (particularly if the minority report was well grounded).
 * Two removes, no inline citation problem: agreed there should be extensions but as much to see if someone will start working on it as to wait for a token third remove.
 * Two keeps, with inline citation problem: this is tricky. Does 1c override a small (or even a robust) keep consensus after the time is up? I'd like more comments on this.
 * Your urgent FARCs: a healthy dose of WP:BEANS :). In practice, the idea of literally no comments beyond nomination will probably be avoided if we keep reminding ourselves and each other of the status of reviews. Marskell 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

''Two keeps, with inline citation problem: this is tricky. Does 1c override a small (or even a robust) keep consensus after the time is up? I'd like more comments on this. ''
 * Inline citation problems = delist. I strongly believe that inline citations are the hardest deficiency to correct over time.  I might let a well-cited FAR slide through even if it has other deficiencies, because 1) a well-cited article is more likely to be better maintained over time, and 2) an editor may come along and fix the prose and other issues, if the references are available.  I don't mind letting some other things slide (except POV or BLP or OR), but I'm in favor of strict enforcement of citations, to minimize the chance of seeing the article back in FAR.  Sandy 05:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsure of the meaning of your "beans" comment. Tony 08:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I simply meant "something gets mentioned, something gets done". It was mentioned that The Giver had had no comments for two weeks, and the next day it's an urgent FARC with a first comment. Of course, WP:BEANS more specifically refers to "don't do this = this gets done", but I didn't mean it badly! BEANS is not entirely bad on the Wiki.


 * Anyhow, I agree with Sandy but I just wanted to be sure about it. I don't want a "why did you remove that with four keeps" comment without being able to point to consensus (you and I discussed this very briefly a while back Tony, but not others). Marskell 09:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion from the sidelines and I feel it is now the time to comment. I am completely opposed to closing anything without comments or clear consensus. The objective of this process is to review feature articles. How can we delist or, worse yet, claim that an article "...(or a previous version) was reviewed and was found to still embody the qualities of a featured article." if a review has not been performed.

I really think that this should not be a vote. Having "guidelines" will encourage the notion that this is a vote and not a process to gather consensus. As I have stated before I do not count votes I read the comments and assess whether they are valid concerns for removing the FA status or valid reasons for keeping the article. If consensus has not emerged then I prefer that the FARC be left open until it does. The downside of this is a large page but I think it is more profitable to find a way to make the large page manageable than to have a small dynamic page where the process is not being justly completed. That's my 2 cents, as always I tend to disagree a bit. :-) Joelito (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the WP:FAR page the edit before I started to merge FARC in. Look and you'll find a review that had been nominated 13 months previously, with many others in the range of six months. Now, I realize invoking the slippery slope can be misleading, but this kind of dead review process is a potentiality that we are absolutely trying to avoid here. Waiting for consensus or comment should not equal completely indefinite time limits. At the same time, I realize hard numbers can be equally stupid (e.g., after precisely X days, it must be closed). So I don't know exactly. The above, you'll note, is default keep if there are no comments (excepting inline citation problems) and I personally feel this acceptable. Absence of commentary = status quo, which is the Wiki way. Marskell 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should in-line citations be more important than comprehensiveness, stability, brilliant prose, focus, etc? Why remove when in-lines are a concern and not when the article is not comprehensive? Joelito (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to disparage the importance of prose or comprehensiveness at all. It's just, as Sandy says, "inline citations are the hardest deficiency to correct over time." Often you need the original writer. Prose and comprehensiveness can be more easily addressed if the citations are there. I suppose one question is: do you view keep as the default, leaving aside other issues. I do because that seems in keeping with Wiki process. Marskell 08:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Joel is saying, and I'm not entirely comfortable with "no comment = status quo". I guess that's why I wrote the urgents box: articles that have been here for quite a while, with little activity, can at least be signposted there. Perhaps no comment = extension and notification of contributors and subsequent status review. The other side of the coin is that if the nominator's reasons are valid and nothing happens, perhaps the article doesn't deserve to be a FA. Raul seems to like the idea of an ever-expanding list of FAs; I don't—I'm quite happy FAs to be a little rarer, because that makes them more special and reinforces their role as models for all WP articles. Tony 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding FARC?
I don't want to add them to the "urgent" list, but can reviewers please have a look at Omnipotence paradox and Free will ? They look to be able to avoid FARC, and if more work is needed, the (very involved) editors should be told so sooner rather than later. Sandy 20:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Left note on Omnipotence paradox about a verify tag, closing Free Will since concerns seem to be addressed and all reviewers agree it is up to par. Joelito (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Urgent FARCs box
I intended that anyone here might remove and add articles appropriately. Even though it's in my user-space, please treat it as public. I've just added Cambodia. Two more could be added, bringing the number to five (which I felt was the comfortable maximum). They take about 10 seconds each: you just insert the article title in two places.

It's obviously going to work better if copies of the box are disseminated. As well as posting it on my user page, I'm placing it at the bottom of my talk page from time to time, inviting visitors to copy it onto their own page.

Tony 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Notifications
I am going to have sporadic internet access for the next two weeks: can someone else please do the notifications? You can find the sample notification on one of the current FARs. I first check the talk page for the original author. Then I do a search on "What Links here" for "Project", notifying any projects. There is also a list of regional notice boards in the info box on this talk page. Thanks, Sandy 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, did you ask permission to edit less frequently for two weeks :). What will we do?! I can't promise to do the notifications, but I'm looking at the page twice a day so I'll try. I'm actually hoping for a lull to take us back to two dozen rather than three. Marskell 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Silly me, I forgot to ask ...  :-)  Sandy 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we may have failed you. I randomly did three or four of the notes but it was rather patchy until you started doing them again :(. Marskell 04:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How does notifying projects etc. compare with notifying individual contributors? Tony 05:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, having not tracked it. I've heard others say that the projects, by and large, are actually diversions and something of a time waster on wiki. There may be some truth to that (tho certain ones, like MilHist, are obviously well looked after). I would guess that notifying the individual contributor is always the better idea because a personal message on usertalk is more of a prompt to action than a general message on wikitalk.


 * Sandy has generally been doing both, which is great, but brings up a problem raised earlier: functional procedure in the absence of individuals. No wiki page should have to rely on a given contributor to accomplish some part of its function. Marskell 05:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that may be good for most pages, but FAC and FAR/C can't possibly do without the ongoing performance of specific, ongoing roles. That's why we need more people, so that the absence of individuals doesn't cause dysfunction. Tony 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should consider cloning. Marskell 06:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL (you can tap into plange - he's good at notifications, too :-) I always check for original editor or FAC nominator:  often, the FARs were promoted in the "brilliant prose" days, and there is no original editor.  If there is an original nom or editor, I notify, but many of them are no longer active.  Then, as the FAR proceeds, I watch to see if any editor is regularly working on the article (see the AC plugs FAR), and drop them a note as well.  And, if consensus about a particular article isn't developing, I start dropping notes to anyone I can find who may know the subject matter (I made second and third notifications of Omnipotence and on Eigenvalue, for example).  I do sense that many of the Project notifications are futile, but at minimum, it's a CYA operation and may gather steam or pay off in the longer run as more editors realize how FAR works, and at best, it generates some input in some cases:  we did our best, so that should help minimize complaints.  I'm open to suggestions:  should I stop notifying, do more notifying, whatever?  I would much rather invest my time in the notifications, then getting attacked, abused and criticized for editing an article under FAR :-) A clone is welcome, but I also put the notifications at the top of the FAR, so that it's easy to see what has been done:  I repeated some when I returned from break, as I didn't realize they had already been done.  Sandy 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cambodia
Damn, this has been up a while. Any other FAR watchers want to take a look at it? Marskell 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius XII has a review page listed on its talk page, but not here. Was this listed corrects here, or was it removed from FAR without the templates deleted from talk? Gimmetrow 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was ever listed here, because it doesn't have my notifications at the top. (Gimmetrow, you never miss a thing!) Sandy 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been listed now. Joelito (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hint to find original nom
Am I missing something? This seems to be a very hard way to find the original nom: I go to the article talk page, and click on the original FAC nom. ??? Sandy 16:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the intent in adding that was good but obviously the original nom via talk is the simplest means. Marskell 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah
Huh? Is it my eyes, my computer, or my brain. The article is gone, although the history and discussion pages are there, and the history shows nothing happened to the article. Ziad Jarrah Sandy 20:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see the article. I can even see that no work has been done for 3 days ;-) Joelito (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well ... I'm getting the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Ziad Jarrah in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings" screen. Still. When I click on the link above.  Maybe I need to re-start my computer or something, but this is weird. Sandy 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Cold booted computer, still no article. Does anyone else use IE6? Sandy 20:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am using IE 6.0. Have you tried Crtl+F5? Joelito (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Did it ... same. Sandy 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well either something is telling you not to edit that article or that you need to take some time off wiki ;-) Joelito (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe both. Oh, well.  Sandy 21:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it might be a bug, theres a few similar questions on Village pump (technical) today. --Salix alba (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)--Salix alba (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I left a note there, at the same time you did. Sandy 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Another idea for improving inline citations
Maybe we can do more to get the projects to work on these in advance. I made this post at MCOTW:. Is this is a good idea, and should we do similar in other areas ? MCOTW also started an FAR area, where I listed other articles I thought had problems:. If we can get projects to work on these articles in advance, maybe we can avoid some FARs? Sandy 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea. I also recommend leaving a note on WikiProject Council which aims to organize WikiProjects. Joelito (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been working on a spreadsheet to summarize Projects to notify for each of the 400+ articles with inline citation problems. From the spreadsheet, I can summarize which articles belong to each project.  I'm about 1/4 of the way done:  I should finish in about a week.  Sandy 19:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WPBIO has been marking FA articles that have inline citation problems -- see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/1 --plange 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, plange: I still pretty much have to go through them one by one anyway.  It's the same work I eventually have to do when each nom comes up on FAR:  identify the original author and all projects involved, so knowing which ones are bios isn't enough.  Usually, the bios have multiple projects involved.  I'll eventually churn out a list of every FA with citation problems for every Project and original author. Sandy 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, misunderstood! Thought you might need a list of articles we've already identified as having problems... --plange 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've finished through the Js, and will eventually have a list of FAs with inline citation problems by Project and by Original nominator (author).

Sandy 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Where should I put those lists? Should I add them to the bottom of Featured articles with citation problems, should I put the lists in a new Wikipedia space article, should I put them in my own namespace, or should I only use them to notify Projects, and not put the lists anywhere?
 * We will need a notification blurb, so that I can post a list to each Project and author (many editors have more than one FA which needs citation). I could use some help on the most diplomatic wording, likely to encourage the Projects and original editors to get involved in citing the articles (probably two differently worded notifications).
 * And, I need advice on how to handle the significant number of articles that were written by notable FA authors who are no longer active on Wiki (e.g.; Lord Emsworth). Do I leave these people a courtesy notification anyway?  How should those notifications be worded, when we know the editors are no longer active?


 * I would place it on the citation problems list. You and I seem to be the only people really watching it, but insofar as someone else might jump in it makes sense to have it all in one place.


 * For an absent nominator, we should still notify, while being diplomatic as you say. Some people have FA "patches" (the Olympic games, Kings and Queens of England, etc.). They wrote three or four up to standard two years ago and suddenly none are up to standard now. It would be most disheartening to suddenly find them removed without at least a notification for each.


 * One thing I've been musing over is a PROD-like structure where we place a note in mainspace: "this article will lose FA status unless work is done over the next week; remove tag if you disagree" or some such, along with the regular notifications. This is prompted by the fact that, while list the has been reduced, we're still on pace for two years to clear it out. Counter-argument: we have had great keeps based on the new, longer process. User:Yomangani is on fire, for instance...


 * Anyhow, if we do ever adopt something like that, the list you're working up now will be very helpful. As always, kudos for great effort on a tedious process, Sandy :). Marskell 22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the FA lacking citations list by author. I'll be adding by Project during the day today, and then will need help on how to begin notifying each Project in a way that is likely to prompt them to get involved. Sandy 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

DONE. Now we need to do something with these lists - next? Featured articles with citation problems Sandy 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to day featured
Today, the fac process is usually featuring quite excellent articles. I'm almost sure some of this will someday will go down in quality and be nominated for review. What is the official stance of the community regarding reverting this articles back to the version when they were featured once they diminish in quality? If indeed everyone agrees that this is a good option then I believe we should state it more clearly for reviewers that this is a possibility when putting articles for review. - Tutmosis 23:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already pretty clear in the text on the FAR page that reduced quality over time falls within its ambit. What I'd like to see is mention on the FAC page that promoted articles need to be tended from time to time, like a garden, or they'll end up here. Tony 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. I am not familiar with the FAR process but wouldn't revisions be much easier when an article degrades in quality rather than improving all over again. I would support such a measure and would like to see it clearly mentioned if the community agrees. Currently I do not see this mentioned anywhere so I am not sure what you ment... - Tutmosis  02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the article, when it was originally featured and the types of changes that have taken place. There has been a steady increase in the expectation of a FA over the last 6-12 months; some articles that were featured before that time would fail to meet today's criteria - thus a revet to the featured version wouldn't necessarily be an improvement. If the article was featured in the last 6 months, and there was degeneration due to "bad editing" - then a revert might be a good option. But if quailty has fallen due to addition of good into in a bad format - you might be losing good stuff that just needs polishing if its reverted. If an article is on FAR because it has become outdated (Country and economy articles), a revert would also be useless.--Peta 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I perfectly agree and am aware of this, that is why I said its an option rather than the only solution. With the current expectations of FAs, the next generation of FARs I believe will mostly deal with the issue of "bad editing". Thats why I think something of this sort should be stated somewhere: "If community consensus agrees that a featured article met the featured article criteria on the day featured and has dimished in quality, then reverting back to the day the article was featured is a possible option to bring an article back to meeting criteria." to help editors not waste time rewriting the article over again. - Tutmosis  23:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mary II of England
... has been cited, and needs a new look/votes. Sandy 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Great save there. People might also look at Ziad Jarrah where work has been done. Marskell 07:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bold in instructions
I've changed the instructions to:

1. Place (upper case) at the top of the...

A bit of emphasis on the "top" aspect as for some busy talk pages it gets lost in the middle of project boxes,portal boxes, peer review requests etc. (Talk:Go (board game) - a lovely example) Yomangani talk 13:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles lacking citations
Can Michael Woodruff be removed from the list, or should we FAR it? It appears to be mostly cited. Sandy 19:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No one responded: I'm going to remove it from the list, since it is referenced.  Sandy 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article probation?
Maybe it would be useful to place featured articles on a two or three month probation in cases where the page is not quite up to snuff but editors are responding to FAR/FARC feedback and making improvements.

Reviewers would write Probation in place of keep/remove/comment if they think a good faith effort is underway to improve a weak FA. At the end of 60 or 90 days the article would automatically return to FAR.

If my hunch is right, a featured article probation tag with a specific expiration date could motivate more Wikipedians to raise old FAs to current FA standards. This would give specific projects and task forces time to rally an effort to save the FA. What do people think of this?  Durova  16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone can come up with a probation template to place on all 400 FAs lacking citations. Sandy 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would have little benefit - it would just drag out the length of time before anybody paid attention to an article. FAR and FARC give plenty of time to work on articles if anybody is interested, and even if an article is demoted there is nothing to stop it being worked on and resubmitted to FAC. I think the problem isn't the speed of the FAR/FARC process but the apathy shown towards maintaining FAs, and I don't think that will be overcome by lengthening the process. Yomangani talk 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should lengthen the current process (a month is enough), but I do think we should come up with a template for the 400 + articles lacking citations, to try to motivate some work before the articles come to FAR. Sandy 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What about placing that this article doesn't cite its sources template to the top of the article? --plange 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems a shame to put a template on the main page of featured articles - it would be nice to have a talk page template. But if everyone is in agreement with tagging the main articles, I can do that work.  Sandy 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can make a talk page one, but can't do it till tomorrow -- that might better, as I think I remember doing the template on the main page once and got my head bitten off for disrupting an FA. :-P --plange 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since one of them (British House of Commons) is on today's main page ... (eek) ... it would be nice to have a talk page template explaining that inline citations are a current requirement, and the article will eventually come up on FAR if not done. Sandy 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How did it get past FAC? --plange 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's one of the older ones; one of the dozens by Emsworth, who is no longer on Wiki. And, in the lead, it links to at least three other FAs with no citations - that's why I'm afraid we can't template the main pages.  Look at the Lacking Citations list for the articles by Lord Emsworth:  they are well written, but uncited. Sandy 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I imagined this not as a template to be applied unilaterally, but as something that reviewers could vote for in cases where some editor is making honest attempts to fix up a shabby FA but probably needs more time than the process normally allows. Think of it for situations where a good editor returns from Wikibreak in the third week of FAR and would otherwise despair of even trying. I get the impression that not a lot of delisted FAs get the help they need to regain FA status?  Durova  19:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Every FAR in which an active editor has requested extra time, and progress is being made (even if slow), has been granted extra time, as long as work is continuing. A month is long enough:  FAs should be watched and tended.  The situations in which *anyone* cares to work on the article are surprisingly few, reflecting that most FAs are just abandoned.  That's why I propose we try to do more, and at the Project level, in advance of FARs.  Sandy 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the input. I guess you already have an informal system for handling the matter.  Best wishes,  Durova  13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

FAR comment at Village Pump
Putting on my thick skin suit:. Sandy 22:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish Soviet War
I am not sure if this needs a formal FAR, but as I recently was forced to insert a NPOV tag into the article, comments would be much appreciated on the talk page, so we can quickly decide wheter the article is or is not NPOVed by some recent edits (like the editors insisting on using the term 'naked agression', for example).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Provisional demotion
Any thoughts on provisionally demoting some articles while they are in FAR? Having articles that are supposed to embody our best work littered with tags pointing out that they are clearly not doing so, doesn't seem to me to be the best promotional stategy. The Polish Soviet War (mentioned above) would seem to be an ideal candidate to be taken off the FA list during FAR and then "re-promoted" if the issues can be resolved. Definition of planet, having been overtaken by current events, would seem to be another. Maybe they could be tagged with an alternative FA template which maintains the star but keeps them out of the FA list (so they don't actually lose their status and have to go through FAC again). Yomangani talk 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that; you are opening a way for vandals and POV-pushers who may attach a POV tag to any FA and claim it is enough for its defeaturing. In PSW case I don't believe the (current) tag is justifified, what is needed is reviewers looking into the matter, deciding if it is justified or not and acting on that basis - not on the assumption that all tags are justified.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto to what Piotrus said. FAR is NOT dispute resolution, we should not be used to make a point, and there are other means of resolving disputes.  We saw this with that anarchism article, where the nom never made a case for what was actually wrong with the article.  I think we should remove the Polish Soviet War listing from here.  Resolving disputes is not our job.  Sandy 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, I was forgetting about vandals and axe-grinders. Please strike that suggestion. Yomangani talk 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm not going there.  If we vote to defeature every article that has a content dispute, then editors who don't like a certain article can cause a content dispute just to get the article defeatured.  We seemed to see that here, where the entire FAR was about editors and their issues rather than the article; I'm not biting.  Content disputes don't belong here, especially brand new ones.  What troubles me here is that this appears to be a brand new dispute on an established FA, and there have been no other attempts to resolve the dispute:  it came first here. Sandy 00:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple case of an editor unfamilair with FARC sumbitting an article to the wrong place. Although - as I said in the begining - a 'just review' place for FAs with disputes on them would be useful, and considering that FAR is not FARC, perhaps it is actually the right place to submit article for comments if talk page discussions are in stalemate? That said, I'd suggest a few days before discussion starts and article ends here, sumbitting in in about a day after discussion startes seems rather to quick.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This defeats the purpose of FAR and (that aside) is a horribly bad idea on its own merits. Raul654 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did say to forget I mentioned it, but (that aside) thanks for the constructive criticism. Yomangani talk 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Second FAR for anarcho-capitalism (imminent)
Anarcho-capitalism has already undergone one Featured Article Review. So, when I inserted the template on the article's talk page to begin a new one, the "add a comment" link directed me to anarcho-capitalism's previous FAR. Am I to initiate a new FAR on the same subpage as the first, or should I create a new subpage? If the latter, how should I go about doing that? -- WGee 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you desire to another FAR for Anarcho-capitalism? FAR is not dispute resolution. Do you consider it does not meet any of the criteria? Do you consider it wise to have another review so soon after the last one? Joelito (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't assume that I desire another FAR merely for dispute resolution. In fact, I can provide specific examples (with diffs) of how the article fails to meet FA criteria (and how it has for a long time failed to meet FA criteria).  If I didn't consider it wise to have another FAR so soon after the last one, I wouldn't be asking these questions.  If you could please look at the last FAR, you will see that the article's FA status is a divisive, controversial issue (almost half of the editors agreed that it should be stripped of its FA status), so the support for one is there.  Not only that, but several editors (including me), thought that the closing of the FAR was premature and disingenuous.  In any case, could you please answer my questions? -- WGee 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a bad precedent. We should wait three months. Marskell 18:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by bad precedent? Why should we wait three months?  Must a certain interval of time pass before conducting another FAR?  What if an article's quality has sharply worsened since the last FAR? -- WGee 18:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been following the article's talk page. It is clearly a content/POV dispute. That is not the intent of FAR.
 * Also If you disagreed with the previous FAR why didn't you voice your opinion when it was in the FARC stage? You commented on the review stage and then when it was already closed. Joelito (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Bad precedent because 1) we can't get in the business of dispute resolution on FAR, and 2) we changed the process here (before the last Anarchism FAR) to allow for a full month of review, which is more than adequate time for the case to be made and all votes to be entered. The article had its month, and didn't have the votes to delist.  If articles are coming up more often, chances are it's a content dispute that has not been dealt with effectively.  What other means of dispute resolution have been tried?  Three months is about right, although I thought it was four?  Addressing your question, WGee: I think (not sure) that you should put _2 (underscore two) at the end of the second review, to distinguish it from the first, and then you have to manually mess with the links:  someone else can clarify.  I'm not sure we've encountered it before, but I know it has caused a problem with links to second FAs. Sandy 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If I feel that the article does not comply with NPOV policy, does not have "brilliant" prose, and does not have a "concise lead section", then I am not allowed to request a review? That doesn't make any sense.  These problems have been longstanding, as I've said, and I would like them dealt with.  What would it matter if it was merely a POV dispute, anyway?  If someone believes that the article fails to meet criterion 1. a), 1. d), and 2. a), then a POV/content dispute will necessarily arise.  Also, do I need your permission to conduct an FAR?


 * When I said that the "the closing of the FAR was premature and disingenuous", I actually meant that the closing of the FARC was premature and disingenuous. User:AaronS notified those who commented in the FAR that the FARC was being conducted, but instead of waiting for the notified parties to comment, someone closed the FARC.  I needed Aaron's notification because I was busy with something in real life. -- WGee 18:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for answering my question, Sandy. However, in my opinion, many of the problems that caused the last FAR to be initiated have not been adressed, and the anarcho-capitalist editors currently involved refuse my attempts to address them.  I am willing to try dispute resolution, but, in the meantime, why shouldn't the article be reviewed?  What harm could come of it?  If the content/POV of an article is disputed, then surely the article's status as a featured article should be questioned as well. -- WGee 19:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine almost all of the active reviewers here would feel much better about defeaturing an article if everything possible had been tried to save it, including dispute resolution. Last time, we found it was a solid article, meeting criteria, but suffering through editor problems, not article problems.  You also thought the earlier closing of the Chavez FARC was "disingenous", even though your revert was part of the final blow to the article, so you knew the process.  I know editors in the anarchism area have been banned right and left, so it seems like the article could benefit from simply being protected from these massive editor disputes, until you all decide to follow the dispute resolution process to resolve the issues.  Are some of those editors going to be banned or unbanned soon?  Has a mediation ever been filed?  Your case here would have more support if you all would make every possible effort to salvage a well-written article.  At any rate, we do have to uphold a precedent about serial FARs. Sandy 19:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandy has answered for me: it's a bad precedent because it encourages serial nominations. Just as you should wait some time before a new AfD, RfA, etc. you should wait some time before a new FAR. This article meets 1c so it's not one of our "embarassing" FAs, and no one is hurting if it has status at the moment. Take a month or two more and work through other channels as suggested. Marskell 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just realized that the article page here explains both how to enter a second FAR and the 3-month period. Sandy 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, the instructions are up there. Copied from FAC. Sorry, someone should have answered that directly. The three month period was initially added in regards to FAC followed by a FAR, but makes the same sense for FAR1 followed by FAR2. Marskell 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nepal
Can someone give me a plausible reason Nepal was removed from FAR? By the way, the fact it was on the main page is a very very weak reason - FAR is here to maintain FA standard, which Nepal isn't based on criterion 1. c. (no inline citations). Every other article is expected to have it, so what makes this one so special? LuciferMorgan 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the article is in the main page it will be very hard to conduct a review because the article will be very unstable. It is wise to wait a few days (usually 3 to 4) after it has been displayed in the main page.
 * Furthermore FAR is not the only was to deal with a featured article that lacks in-line citations. You may ask for citations in the article's talk page and try to resolve the issues before conducting a formal review.
 * As a side note I must highlight the fact that the article contains in-line citations in the form of invisible notes (inote) viewable in edit mode. Footnotes are recommended in the Wikipedia style guide but they are not the only in-line citation style accepted. If you do not agree with inotes then you could convert them to footnotes. Joelito (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Joel. The main page day and the few days after where it's listed as recently featured are important new editor fishing expeditions and are a content improvement process in-themselves. A couple of hundred people vandalize, and two or three start legitimate accounts because they enjoy the article. Older editors stop by and put it on their watchlist. Let this happen, and then judge if there's been improvement and whether a FAR is still needed. Marskell 20:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And also as noted in the nomination, it was based on a misunderstanding of the FA criteria. Not the end of the world, we live and learn. - Taxman Talk 14:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nichalp and I collaborated on Nepal. I'm sure he'll be willing to change the inline citations, but please check that he's available before nominating? Tony 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I went through the article when it was listed for FAR and there are no innotes, I guess someeone could have removed them; but there is a lot of statistical stuff there that should have cites.--Peta 02:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are still two inotes in the article. Joelito (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)