Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/sub

Quick questions:


 * Two weeks review plus two weeks in the removal section too long? Two weeks plus one week maybe? Ten days and ten days?


 * There are two alternate versions of the Featured articles of concern, one emphasizing criteria considerations only and one basically suggesting "keep" or "remove" as presently occurs on FARC. Which do people prefer?


 * What do we do about Featured articles first? Presently on WP:FAR people are directed there. It's a very dead process, however, and I wonder if it's instruction creep. Marskell 10:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, featured articles first is really just a place to keep the list of revision id tags, except that it's very tedious and difficult to compile and so it's terribly out of date. If you don't want to keep track of the last reviewed revision id, there's no need to have it. Tuf-Kat 23:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tedious and difficult to compile, to be sure. I wonder how many have stopped at FAR, read the demands, and thought forget it. We could have a much simpler, review "started and finished on" page when this is running, which people looking after it can quickly make a note on. Marskell 08:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)