Wikipedia talk:How to review a featured article candidate

Some possible additions to this guide, offered for comment
To authors receiving criticism: no-one’s writing is perfect, so any article can benefit from the critical eye of an outsider. Take criticisms of your work in good part, as intended to improve wikipedia, not to attack you personally.

To editors making criticisms: language is an anarchy, not a hierarchy. No-one has authority to say what correct writing is, and usages and personal styles vary. Comment politely and in a spirit of collaboration. Don’t present yourself as correcting the prose, present yourself as trying to improve it, and accept that others may reasonably disagree about what improvement would be.

To everyone taking part in the FAC process: remember that tone comes across badly in the written exchanges of wiki dicussions. Be aware that what you write can accidentally come across as much more unpleasant than you meant it to; be aware that what you read may not be intended how you read it.

Any thoughts? Cheers, Sam Clark 09:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me, Sam. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'd caution against is the "no one has the authority to say what correct writing is." I agree to a point, but it's also true that there are rules that are prescriptive as well as descriptive. Reviewers shouldn't be dogmatic about issues that boil down to personal preference, but some issues (correct use of grammar, spelling, punctuation) should be enforced. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed - the reason I wrote it that way was because I couldn't see a way to formulate the correct grammar vs. mere prescriptions about style distinction precisely, and it seemed better to err on the side of anarchy. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd not be happy with advice against "correcting", and I disagree that no one can say what correct writing is. There's an inner core where it's possible to say write or wrong, surrounded by issues that arise from personal style. But is redundant wording right or wrong? It's usually not ungrammatical, but IMV, it should be framed as wrong. Tony 11:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I suggested below, there is no better authority than precedent. If a reviewer objects to something, the contributor needs to find a precedent for that usage in an authoritative source, with a similar subject matter.  The easiest way to do this is by a site search on SEP or something like that. Dbuckner 11:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Do you think that I, for example, do not know anything about, or do not carefully follow, the rules for the correct use of grammar, spelling, punctuation (well, I AM a bit wobbly with that last actually)?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I got a 790 on the American Graduate Record Examinations and have never been criticized on my grammar, spelling or punct outside of Wikipedia.


 * I think this page will be a hard one to write, and will take a long time to get right. Good writing, for example, is not just a question of good grammar, sp and punc. I tend not to make basic mistakes in those areas either, but it's nevertheless true that my writing sometimes contains a lot of fatty tissue, and it's always helpful to have that pointed out to me. There's no algorithm for good writing; it's a subjective thing, and yet most of us know it when we see it. So we want reviewers who can spot it, know how to achieve it, and so on, without being dogmatic about personal preferences. I don't know how to word that, but I'm hoping some of the regular reviewers will start to fill out the page regarding what they actually look out for, and we can take it from there. That is, I'm hoping we can derive prescriptions from their descriptions. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Slim, I do not deny any of this this either. What is going to very difficult,IMHO, is writing this page in such a way that it does talk about redundancy, conciseness, peackok words, et al,  and yet distinguishes such legitimate considerations from some of the extrenely dubious stuff proved to be subjective and/or false pointed out by Dbuckner at the very end of the FAC talk page on Putnam.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

If you don't want your material to be reviewed mercilessly or criticized by others, do not submit it to FAC. Zzzzz 10:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Zzzzz - why should reviewing be 'merciless'? Why shouldn't it be courteous and collaborative? Cheers, Sam Clark 10:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * reviewing is simply editing by proxy, whenever you press edit you are told "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it", so why should it be any different for reviews? as User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them explains:


 * Remember, featured article candidates are expected to meet a series of objective and subjective standards, it's not just a prize that rewards any particular editor's work on an article or dedication to a subject. As Michael Corleone once said, "It's not personal. It's strictly business.


 * "I worked, like, really hard on this!" We are truly sad to report that if the outcome is not up to snuff, no one besides your mother cares how hard you worked on it. Blame Darwin. 


 * FAC can be rough, but try to take any criticism you many receive as constructive. Automatically declaring every comment inactionable can come off as combative, and you may find that the combination of many small notes and resultant fixes become the basis for a substantial improvement in your article. Zzzzz 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's criticizng the critizers and verifying their accuracy. The process should also be accurate and precise. Who's overseeing the overseers?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

On the prose question in particular, I think some of the comments in this review are misguided. Wiki works via consensus and is non-hierarchical. Some objections may be subjective: the admin closing the vote will take that into account. We can't make prescriptions beyond, perhaps, what Tony has already done in his exercises. I don't know that it will be possible to tighten up wording on the prose issue: perhaps that's why I focus more on the technical issues. (And, usually articles with technical issues have prose issues, too.) Sandy 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Things to look out for

 * I do not want to see constraints placed on reviewers that will inhibit the arduous process of changing WP's culture towards one that values good prose more than it does now.
 * I don't like what I see at the top of this page.
 * The FAC and FARC rooms might involve occasional rough and tumble, but the rules on civility are quite adequate recourse in those places, IMV.
 * There is a danger that this set of guidelines will end up being so compromised that it means little. That's a problem. Tony 12:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, it's what ends up staying on the project page that matters, not on this one. I think people here are just trying to judge what the parameters should be. As I see it, the aim is to provide a framework within which we can offer advice to reviewers so that they're in a position to offer consistent comments, support, and objections to nominators; and the hope is that this will help to sharpen people's sense of what makes an FA. Ultimately, it would be great to end up with a group of trained reviewers who use standards that this page outlines, so that there's no mystery and no inconsistency across nominations, and so that nominees get no shocks.


 * I think it would also be a good idea if we avoid discussing particular articles. That should be done on the relevant FAC page. This talk page is to discuss how to construct a set of useful guidelines for reviewers. SlimVirgin (talk)

Supporters v objectors
in an FAC the problem is not really with thse who "object", but with those who "support" unthinkingly because they are "fans" of the subject matter, they are part of the wikiproject that "owns" it, they are friends with the submitter, they dont realize there is specific criteria for FA, etc etc. shouldn't the same onus of burdens that is being put on those who "object" equally apply to those who "support", especially as all these "supports" are given even weight with the most detailed of objections? Zzzzz 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, zz, and my hope is that this page will eventually contain a set of suggestions that are concrete enough to allow supporters to see when their support isn't really justified; and objectors can point that out, as well as vice versa. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely concur! We have far too many articles getting through with tortured prose and poor references, simply because enough "fans" support them.  Then, another FAC comes along, and the nominator wants to know why his/her article is being held under intense scrutiny, when an inferior article carries the star.  The problem is the articles supported by editors who don't appear to have read them, to have checked the references, or to have reviewed FA criteria.  THAT is the problem we need to look at here, rather than subjective evaluations of prose, which are very necessary.  Maybe we need to start challenging some of the support votes?  Sandy 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Putnam case, wrong. Three of the people involved are professional philosophers, who have an obvious mastery of the subject matter.  I was not involved in the article itself, but I have a philosophical training and a good track record of publications, and citations.  The fact remains that many of the comments were illiterate and misinformed.  Franco's point is a good one.  There needs to be some process to establish the authority of those who would comment on a technical subject.   Dbuckner 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any obvious signs of professional philosophers on that page. Who were they? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "obvious mastery of the subject matter" didn't allow you to see the problems with the article, which were corrected in a successful outcome of a premature FA nomination after a lot of hard work by reviewers (and Francesco). "Authority of those who comment?"  This is not the New England Journal of Medicine:  this is Wikipedia.  We are all volunteers, the project is consensual and there is no hierarchy.  The combined effort of many reviewers brings article weaknesses to light.  Do you believe, for example, that an article should be submitted to FA without a single citation?  We need to clear up the expectations on FA so that the process will be easier on nominators and reviewers – not bash the reviewers who have to point out the FA expectations which are already published in several places. Sandy 18:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A reviewer MUST clearly distinguish issues which are 'style manual' i.e. conformity to a standard to which non-conformity indicates not bad writing, but mere non conformity, from 'bad writing'. Where Franco hit the roof was the spot where Tony came in with a series of trivial (and as it turns out incorrect) objections, then capped it with the comment that it was 'full of flab' and not good writing or something to that effect.  In fact he clearly didn't follow his own rules when he wrote (in his 2a article) "While most aspects of good writing in English are widely accepted, authorities may vary in their attitudes to particular technical and stylistic matters. "
 * Also it should be a basic principle that if there is an established precedent for a certain use in the same context (an encyclopedia), the precedent is decisive. This is a basic principle of English law, which has no equivalent of a 'style manual'.
 * Be specific - avoid sweeping assertions.
 * Be sensitive. Sam Clark has already mentioned this, I second it.?Dbuckner 11:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Be receptive to challenge. I was amazed to be told that one was not allowed to challenge a reviewer's comments.  Surely this is not true?  Dbuckner 11:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't make this larger issue about Putnam: it was not a typical case. Reviewers practiced good restraint, considering the lack of civility evidenced.  Sandy 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Buckner, I object to the comments that you made above. That's your take that my objections were trivial and wrong; this claim is best not repeated here. I certainly do not agree with it.

As far as I'm concerned, the "six points" overleaf are unnecessary and inappropriate. I certainly won't be supporting them. Tony 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, could you be more specific about why you disagree with the points? Let's start with the one about deferring to established precedent.  If a reviewer claims that one should not use the word 'perhaps' in the introduction to a philosophy article, and the contributor finds that Anthony Quinton has indeed used the word 'perhaps' in an established encyclopedia, then isn't that a very good way to resolve potentially explosive disputes?  And won't it make the job of the reviewer MUCH easier.  The burden of proof is on the contributor to find the precedent.  Simple. Dbuckner 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So if I'm able to find an example of poor prose in an established encyclopedia, it's acceptable to include here as well? Makes sense to me. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  20:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Start
I am neither a professional editor nor a regular review of FACS. However I do often review and correct many, many articles on Wikipedia which are catastrophically written (the vast majority of 99.999999999999999%). I think this is an appropriate place to make several observations. 1)The Good Article process has no review process at all. This is an absurdity. People will be led to think that their article really is "Good" in some sense of "better than the vast majority of articles". They will then be likely to go on to FAC and end up, in many cases, being buried alive and forced to try to do the impossible task of transforming an mediocre article into the one that is "compelling and brilliant". Clearly something needs to be done about this. 2) The peer review is non-existent. Right now, there is an article called Global Justice which has been in peer review for several weeks. The last time I looked, it had received one comment: mine. This is an embarrassment. Either the self-appointed (or collectively recognized) "experts" in copy-editing and reviewing should be obliged to work in Peer Review, or the name should be changed to "Who cares about philosophy, mathematics and other difficult areas, bring your latest sci-fi stuff here and we will praise it". --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was very puzzled when I first saw the Good article process, which was just last week. People put up titles; they sit there for a period; and if no one objects (or notices), they're promoted. I fail to see the point of that, and it can lead people to think the next step is FAC. Also, peer review is sometimes actually harmful and leads to editors with little knowledge of the area editing the article badly. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Example: an old peer review of mine on philosophy of mind. Click on the Peer Review link on the talk-page, etc.. I had to revert almost every single one of the "improvements".--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a group of us who have experience in writing philosophy to have an informal review process of our own, in order (a) to run a content check (b) to address the purely style manual issues that cause so much unnecessary irritation at an FAC. This was not possible in before, because there simply weren't enough philosophers in WP.  That seems to have changed.  I am happy to work with Franco (provided he try not to take things so personally - that, it has to be said, was a major problem in the Hilary Putnam thing), with Sam Clark, who is a talented writer, also Brian Morton. I believe the Virginal One has some experience in this area.  Is that right, Slimvirgin?  There are a few others.  The difficulty with the good philosophers is that they are going to be professionals, and have limited time.  On the other hand, the number of philosophy articles coming up for review is bound to be small.  We could agree beforehand what the important articles could be.  Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks, and I'd be happy to take part in a philosophy review process (PReP?). Cheers, Sam Clark 15:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Putnam was not a typical FAC
Thanks for the invite, SV. I'll look at this once I've done my other daily work. One point: Putnam was not a typical FAC review, although it did come through after lots of hard work. We shouldn't be basing decisions on Putnam, other than to use it as an example of 1) why civility should be practiced in reviews (and here), and 2) what can happen when you put up an article for FAC that is not ready or referenced. I hope we don't get distracted by Putnam, since it wasn't typical. IMO, what we need to work on is preparing editors for the expectations of FAC, so we don't get so many articles that aren't ready.

Peer review and good article are of little help IMO, and the Projects are variable. They are sometimes too close to their own work, and don't see defects. (Several of the philosophers are still insisting that Putnam was ready, when it was one of the most intense FACs we've worked on recently. Another example is copyedit problems in many of the Indian articles.  Few Projects have a review process oriented towards FAC:  MCOTW is one, but they don't churn out a lot of articles.)  Any other review can only be a first step:  we need to write an independent page about FAC expectations, going beyond PR, GA, and Projects. One point is that independent reviewers on FAC have distance from the articles, and can spot flaws.

The Dylan article is currently under FAR, and there is a disagreement about the need for references. We may need to look at WP:CITE to see if it is tight enough. Our description of FAC should focus on the criteria: what do we specifically look for in each. What I look for in references is beyond what is described in WP:CITE, so it should be no surprise that FAC nominators aren't always prepared. Sandy 12:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Francesco, could you please keep the discussion about Putnam on the article talk or FAC page? This isn't the place for it. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't be discussing particular cases here; and we should also bear in mind that hard cases make bad law. :-)


 * As for WP:CITE, that's a guideline about how to cite sources (how to write citations); it doesn't say much about the need for sources per se. The policies that deal more fully with sources are WP:V and WP:NOR, and then there's a guideline page: WP:RS. When you talk about what you look for in references, can you say more about what you mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To give you a better example, I'll look at all of those pages, and merge guidelines there with what is occurring on the Dylan article. It's not clear to me (yet) if the Dylan editors are misreading, or if WP guidelines aren't clear.  More later, Sandy 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dylan examples
OK, I'm back. Reviewing the issues that are coming up on the Dylan article, you are correct that the issues are covered in other places, and they shouldn't be specifically referring only to WP:CITE. In fact, a review of the problems occurring there reinforces the notion that WP policies are well elaborated. Some examples from the talk page at Dylan:


 * A question about the need to inline cite direct quotes. (In what universe are direct quotes not cited?  WP:CITE specifically mentions direct quotes.)


 * All quotes must have inline citations per WP:CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A quote from there: Can I ask why "citations are needed" for statements that have been pretty much done to death in every single book ever written on the subject? I don't even understand this.  If a number of books about Bob Dylan reference a given statement, that makes it easy to cite.  Why object?  Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, and following the Siegenthaler incident, we can't ask our readers to take our word for it:  we should cite everything we can.


 * Any edit that is challenged must be referenced per WP:V, which is policy; all negative material about living persons must be referenced, whether challenged or not, per WP:BLP, which is policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  My grad school training on citing sources was that if it was in at least 3 reputable books I didn't need to cite it as it can be assumed to be common knowledge. I have no idea if WP follows the same rule of thumb, so you might want to ask there. If WP follows this policy, we should change it.  We can't assume Wiki readers have read all of the sources:  our role is to lead them to the sources, and demonstrate that our content is reliable.  If something is in 3 books, citing it should be easy.  Why the fuss?


 * Anything that is challenged must be referenced, and if it's in a lot of books, so much the easier. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another quote: Readind WP:CITE it looks somewhat ambiguous. But it implies that cites are needed for opinions, or for info that someone is likely to dispute.  I don't think WP:CITE is ambiguous at all:  here's what WP:CITE says (emphasis mine):
 * Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes, information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes (such as statements that something is the best, first or only one of its kind).
 * Right, but the policy is WP:V, and it states clearly that if you challenge something, it must be referenced. Therefore, if you are challenging the material, for whatever reason, they must cite it or you may remove it. Period. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:CITE is also clear on original research, which is a problem at Dylan:
 * Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.
 * Another Dylan example: I was actually surprised that a lot of the statements that could be disputed were looked over. For instance, "Dylan and Lownds divorced in July 1977, though they reportedly remained in regular contact for many years and, by some accounts, even to the present day." Biographies of living persons should be scrupulously cited.


 * Yes, and it's now policy i.e. mandatory, unlike WP:CITE, which is just a style guide. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An example of uncited POV: “Dylan’s 1978 album Street Legal” was lyrically one of his more complex and absorbing.” ?


 * It's original research and needs a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It now has a source along with 35 new references.Mick gold 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So, in summary, I overstated (above) problems with WP:CITE. We need to reinforce editors' understanding of original research, neutrality, biographies of living persons, etc. What I should have said is that when I look at references, I take *all* of WP's policies into account, not just what is stated at WP:CITE. Perhaps we can expand on the wording there, considering some of the Dylan misunderstanding? Sandy 14:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where should the wording be expanded, in CITE? It used to be, but then other editors objected that it was getting too long, and so material was removed. There's a tendency on WP to want to keep policy pages short and geared in a particular direction, which means that people who read them get only a partial view of what's required in the relevant area. WP:CITE is a page that has suffered from this tendency. WP:V and WP:NOR are the more serious pages regarding the need for sources, and they are relatively stable. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct: I was working on Dylan late last night, and once I reviewed the issues with a fresh perspective today, it all amounts to editors there not understanding policy.  Sandy

Guidelines
I've suggested six guidelines in the article. I hope the thinking behind them should be obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway.

The first point is one that is typically given in all guidelines on how to deal with people. People respond better to positive than negative criticism.

The second is for fairness to hopeless cases, of which there are many in WP. Don't lead people up the garden path.

The third is obvious. Don't make any criticism unless you can back it up. There were plenty of criticisms made in the Putnam FAC that simply didn't hold water.

Note the wording in the fourth. Challenge to criticism should be constructive. Tony made some comments that supporters felt was pedantic. But it does absolutely no good to point this out. Tony's life's work is commas in the right place. Commas are the very pivot of his being. Say that his criticisms are pedantic, and you are somehow challenging the very foundation of his being, his world. So don't. If the comma needs putting in or taking out, just do it. If not, cite a reference, and stand your ground. I always use Fowler, which is still the bible in England, though old.

The fifth is the most important. There was clear evidence of a conflict between English and American use in the Putnam case. WP has a policy of being sensitive to local differences. Politely point it out that we write things in different ways outside the US, and stick to your ground.

Finally, be proportionate. Kind of difficult, given that people who think commas are the most important thing in the world, do not believe that an obsession with commas is disproportionate. But let's try. Dbuckner 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like these, and they do a better job of distinguishing questions of usage from issues of taste than my erring-on-the-side-of-anarchy attempt above. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi DB, you added: "Poor grammar, or spelling, punctuation is not the same as 'bad writing', though the two often go together." How could something be well written and include poor grammar, spelling, and punctuation? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's just been an edit conflict. I wrote, before I saw what you wrote: "===suggestion 6 (proportionality)===

"SlimV, I see where you are coming from, but your edit lost the logic of the point. The point was that some kinds of mistake are not so important as others.  I know people who are dyslexic who are brilliant writers.  And there are different kinds of grammatical error.  Feel free to edit it back, but there must be a way to make this point.  I'll think about it.  Any suggestions from others would be welcome". Dbuckner 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That partly answers your question. There's a generally recognised distinction between 'good writing', which is all to do with thread, expressing a single idea, balance, all that sort of stuff. But rather than me spout on, I'll consult a few eighteenth century books this weekend over some cold beers. Good work. Dbuckner 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a good example is the Vulgate, which includes poor spelling and punctuation, or Shakespeare, which includes terrible spelling by our standards (which is not even consistent with itself). We can read past all that. Another example is the kind of bad English translation of great non English writers. Aristotle, Plato and so forth. Many translations are terrible, and break all the rules in Tony's book, but the greatness is often still visible from the rest. Dbuckner 16:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and bring in my chum Brandon Watson, who is an expert on style and good writing generally. I'm sure he will have something to say!! Dbuckner 16:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * DB, can you give an example of where something might be regarded as well written in British English, but not in American-English? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes absolutely. here is a sample of writing from the great CD Broad, a famous English philosopher who has a chatty style, and breaks every single one of Tony's rules and more.  For example, you can count 385 of 'we', 365 of 'I', 95 questions, 40 occurrences of 'very' and lots of other things that the WP style police would not allow.  In general, English English is much more flexible about informality and chattiness than American English, which we find pedantic and parochial and generally risible.  Americans are also obsessive about style manuals.  I think, perhaps this will be controversial, that it's due to the lack of an upper class in America.  In England there's still this idea of gentleman's English, which you just know about, and has no manual of style (the very idea!!!).  In America by contrast there is no such thing, therefore you need rule books and so forth.

JL Austin is another old school writer who breaks every rule in the book but is nonetheless regarded as a great stylist. 86.133.180.63 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another example of Broad at work here. Wonderful. quite unbelievably it begins "Some apology is needed for the tardiness of this notice of a work which bears the date 1910. The reviewer can only plead that the book did not fall into his hands till late in last year and that it deserves something better than a hurried reading.". 86.133.180.63 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the best known style manuals was Fowler's, and he was a master of "gentleman's English," which tends not to include any grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors. Specifically, though, I was asking for an example from Wikipedia of writing you felt would be regarded as good in the UK, but not in the U.S. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
I see a lot on the article page that appears headed in the wrong direction, so I hope changes will proceed at a slower pace, while consensus is developed. Again, tough cases make bad law, and too much of the current content appears based on the wrong premise.

Specifically:

''Reviewing a featured article candidate requires a number of skills. In particular, reviewers should ideally be very familiar with the content policies and style guides, have good writing and research skills, good general knowledge, and should be able to criticize constructively while being tactful and sensitive.'' Wrong start. We need *more* reviewers, not less. Anyone can review on WIki: it's a consensual, non-hierarchical project. We don't want to discourage review: we do want to remind reviewers not to support without thoroughly reading the article. This paragraph isn't heading that direction. Tactful and sensitive are already covered in civility, and it's often the nominators who need to be reminded, not the reviewers. This paragraph needs rephrasing to encourage review, but remind nominators not to take comments personally. I object to this paragraph.


 * Reviewers have to be familiar with the content policies and style guides, otherwise they're likely to give non-actionable advice. They also need to have solid general knowledge, because you can't review a subject you know absolutely nothing about. Ditto with the writing skills: you can't review writing unless you can write. If you want to raise standards of FAs, reviewer standards have to be high too. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then let's emphasize that reviewers should read policy. Yes, you can review a subject you know nothing about:  I review references, form, other issues, and contribute what I can, without claiming to know content.   (For example, I haven't voted on the Whitetip Shark FAC that is currently up, because there are content objections there, indicating it needs expert review. I may object to references, then strike my objection once they're done, but I won't vote support if there are content questions.  I don't vote on computer game FAs, because I know nothing about them.  That doesn't mean I can't check references and do other tasks.) you can't review writing unless you can write. I disagree there as well.  My own prose is tortured, but I can still pick out a sentence without a subject and predicate.  Sandy


 * A courageous admission (.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's featured articles are regarded as showpieces, Perhaps somewhere we can work in a reminder to nominators not to make the mistake of comparing to any existing FAs, as they may have deteriorated over time?


 * Good idea. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. But also add somthing like: "reviews are not based on comparisons with older FAs, as the standards are subject to change over time.....e.g., date linking, templates and so on.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

''Reviewers are encouraged to be rigorous in their assessment of nominations, while being respectful of the amount of effort that may have gone into a nomination, even one that isn't up to scratch. '' Again focus is wrong here. We need to remind novice reviewers to read the articles and thoroughly review them. Instead, this reads as if there is a problem with the reviewers' conduct, which I haven't seen. While nothing said here is wrong, it misses the larger problem, which is reviewers who support without having apparently checked the article.


 * I see this as balanced: be rigorous and be respectful. The page aims to address the issue of inconsistency, with some pages, as you say, being supported too easily, and other pages being objected to unreasonably. With a set of clear guidelines, assuming we can get them off the ground, the inappropriate support and object problems will be eased. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, it's not so much that there is something wrong with that wording: it's that the page isn't addressing the bigger problems of nominators unprepared for FA. Sandy 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really beleive that they have to have their butts kicked in Good Atrticle, Peer Review, or somewhere along the process. At least somone should do something so that such processes exist in more than name only. Your always going to have billions of FAs. There are god-knows-how-many contribuors to Wikièedia and they all naturally want some kind of, at least, symbolic recognition that their work is not compltely useless. It's a very strange expericence for anyone to write something volunatrily, get mostly positive feedback (meanginsless as it may be), get the seal of Good Arctile (Oh, cool man!! Just a little more words maybe?), go through peer review and get "bad" advide or gratuitous praise, then put the artcile up for FAC and get mugged by five or six knowledgable experts who eat and sleep to the the Wiki standards and policies and/or professioal editos wh have spent their careerss wiping out the word "very", and other grautuities, from texts. I realy think this is the key. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to provide guidelines for reviewers so that they're in a position to offer consistent comments, support, and objections when they review nominations. If that is truly the purpose of this page, then I object to the entire page. I thought we were trying to set up some guidelines to prevent the large number of articles that aren't ready for review, and to give nominators guidelines to help them better prepare for review, explaining the large "chasm" between peer review, GA, and FA.


 * I don't know where you got that idea. I was pretty clear in my explanation of what the page is for. It will, of course, have a knock-on effect of helping nominators prepare better, because the guidelines for reviewers (what to look out for) will help nominators too. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From your message to me: and hopefully also less work for reviewers because candidates will come more prepared.  What is on the page now isn't going that direction. Sandy 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Six suggestions Wrong approach. Where are we explaining to nominators what is expected of them? Why is this page about reviewers, implying there has been a problem with review?


 * The page will explain what the review guidelines are. These will help reviewers and nominators. I don't see it as an us-and-them thing. Both have the same goals viz. to improve articles and to highlight the best ones.


 * But there has been a problem with review. Many of the reviewers' comments were grammatically, factually and stylistically inaccurate.  My suggestion 3. was check your sources. Dbuckner 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this page is heading the wrong direction, and I don't support it at all. I was invited to participate in a discussion of WP:REVIEW. There appears to have been a change in focus, to a re-hashing of the most unfortunate Putnam review. We already have too many bad FAs: if review is watered down by vague guidelines which are already covered in civility (and adhered to by most reviewers), while new reviewers are discouraged from participating, we're likely to have still more problematic FAs.


 * I agree that raising the Putnam thing again was unfortunate. Francesco has removed his latest comment from the page. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's still a big elephant in this room, so we might as well get it out on the table. And, I did not mean to point a finger at Francesco. Let's remember that we have two others here, who are not regular FAC reviewers, and appear to be basing some statements on one unfortunate FA.  Tough case: bad law.  Sandy 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Some contributors might separate their emotions about Putnam from this process, which was to address a long-standing problem. Going back to the talk page discussion of FAC, the tenure of this page has completely changed from the problems discussed, and which I thought we were addressing.

Sandy 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, it's very early days. This page will take a long time to get right, because we're trying to derive a set of principles from what many of us do intuitively. And the Putnam cloud is still hanging over everything. Don't give up on the page too soon. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Allright, good point. Sandy 17:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Putnam FAC debate does raise some important points about the responsibilities of both reviewers and nominators. From your side of the fence, the fault there was with the supporters of the article, I assume including me. From my side, the original incivility was from a reviewer - Tony - although Franco rapidly responded in kind (I imagine both Tony and Franco would have things to say in their defence, as do I in mine, but that isn't really the point here). More generally, you say 'I thought we were trying to set up some guidelines to prevent the large number of articles that aren't ready for review, and to give nominators guidelines to help them better prepare for review, explaining the large "chasm" between peer review, GA, and FA.' I didn't think that - there's already plenty of advice on that issue, from Tony and Jengod, as linked from the bottom of the page. The problems I (and I think others) had with the Putnam review process are the issues being discussed here, and which you object to our raising: that reviewers need to balance the admirable desire to improve WP against the potential to be needlessly unpleasant and dogmatic about trivial or subjective issues of style. Cheers, --Sam Clark 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. While I don't think you can point to single personal attack on the FAC from any reviewer, there are numerous examples on the Putnam FAC and talk pages of egregious personal attacks on the reviewers from the nominators and supporters.  In another situation, these extreme personal attacks would have been actionable.  Because reviewers understand that nominators may get upset, there was no action.  I believe the record shows very clearly where the problems occurred.  So, we disagree :-)  I'm interested in strengthening the FA instructions to better prepare nominators and encourage new reviewers to actually read the work, while discouraging undue "fan" support: I am not interested in bashing hard-working reviewers.  I have yet to see one of these trivial issues of style.  Sandy 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, considering the hard, good faith work so many people put into Putnam, should I have to read, then slam the ***ing thing right up there you-know-whats? SlimVirgin put up an honest attempt here to improve FAC:  I believe her efforts have been hijacked by one bad case.  It appears to me that, as much as SV has tried to keep the discussion on track, the elephant in this room is that this really is about Putnam.  So let me ask you a question, SamClark.  Are you aware that Francesco was already agitated when Jerry Fodor didn't achieve FA, and that he nominated Putnam just to see what we'd do with it?  Re-read the nomination, where he put it up without a single citation, and re-read how upset he was before he put it up.  You might not have a complete history of when the problem began. Sandy 17:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can raise the standards of FACs and not raise the standards of reviewers. The two go hand in hand. Good editors will be happy to submit their work to good reviewers. If we have no guidelines for reviewers, and anyone is encouraged to turn up with a comment, then the FAC process is just like peer review. Of course, this is a wiki and anyone is allowed to comment, but a set of guidelines will encourage consistent, intelligent comment. Having said that, we should strongly resist any attempt to turn this into an attack page of current review practices. Rather, I'm hoping that the reviewers will tell us what they currently do, and we can try to extract from that some principles i.e. derive a prescription from a description. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy: 1. I haven't made any claims about personal attacks. The problem which is exercising me is the needlessly aggressive and patronising tone of comments and objections (not from you, I should add: you've been consistently tough but reasonable), and about the need for special care from everyone involved in the heated atmosphere of FAC. I include myself in that criticism. 2. I agree - and I say above - that Franco behaved badly (sorry Franco, but you did get pretty carried away). 3. I regret the one personal attack I made on Tony, refering to his 'self-certainty and egotism'. Tony (if you're reading this): I apologise for that; I don't apologise for calling you on the tone and dogmatism of your criticisms, on which my opinion remains the same. 4. In answer to your question - I'd only just started regular involvement with WP as the Jerry Fodor thing was brewing, and I added a (too late as I thought at the time) support to its nomination, but didn't take any further part in the discussion. I was aware that Franco was upset, sure. But I'm not clear why this is important. 5. 'I have yet to see one of these trivial issues of style' - check Dr Buckner's list of 'baseless objections'. 6. I am still convinced that there is a need for guidelines for reviewers as well as for nominees and supporters, and I think this page is a good start - although SV is quite right to resist its turning into an attack. So yes, we disagree - but hopefully we can continue to do so in a friendly way. Cheers, Sam Clark 17:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find Sandy's comment strange. I have given a list of baseless criticisms.  Perhaps Sandy could comment on any one of them?  For example 'most well known' versus 'best known'.  Dbuckner 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Putnam article is the elephant in the room. But let's try and learn from that.  If we had not called Tony's objections pedantic, but had simply challenged them with evidence, sources, examples from standard manuals and so forth, this might not have happened. Dbuckner 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to Sandy's point about tough cases, bad law, my professional work involves difficult negotation, and I see this kind of thing all the time. OK, not quite so bad as that.  I see the same kind of thing, let's say.  The suggestions were on the lines of things we use so that there are clear rules both for 'contributors' and 'reviewers'.  I'm a reviewer, actually, and there are fairly strict rules I have to adhere to.  This includes being open to challenge, for example. Dbuckner 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the elephant in the room is the 'list of baseless objections'. Not one on the 'reviewer' side has yet to mention its existence.  Of course not.  Once you have acknowledged it is there, you must say something about it.  So, do not acknowledge it is there.  Sandy, have you seen the list?  Dbuckner 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've always thought it was a baseless baseless list, and that you don't seem to understand Wikipedia. For example, if I ask for a rewording of one sentence (one - among a very long list of concrete, actionable objections), the nominator is free to ignore my subjective criticism, but is encouraged to be courteous and make an attempt to address my concern.  Others (including the admin who closes the review) can decide if I was just too thick to comprehend the sentence.  I hope you will acknowledge that we all worked together to salvage Putnam, and stop bringing that into this page.  My final note for a bit on this topic will be that I have neglected some very worthy work on the FAC and FAR rooms (and my own projects) for almost a full week, because of the extraordinary focus that Putnam required (demanded);  this neglect has not been fair to other nominators.  This page has an undercurrent of a personal vendetta against Tony, IMO, and is not at all in the spirit of Wikipedia.  I am going to try to get back to some productive work, and check in on this page less frequently.  Sandy 18:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure
I've started to expand this a little. Nothing that I'm adding is written in stone. I'm just trying to lay down a structure within which editing can take place, so if people object, please don't panic. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Working together
Can I ask, please, that people stop discussing particular articles or particular reviewers? All that's happening is that some reviewers are starting to feel alienated; and as a result are wondering whether they should take part in this. If they don't, this page will be meaningless, because they're the ones with the experience; and they're the ones who are actually reviewing articles all the time. This page can't be hijacked in favor of any particular cause. The aim is to develop a set of consistent, explicit, reasonable guidelines (that are consistent with our policies) on how to review an FAC &mdash; a reviewers' and nominators' checklist. If it would help, we can switch the focus from reviewers, and write instead about what both sets of parties should be looking out for. But please, let's try to pull together on this. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers editing the article
From the last point in the "Reviewers" section: "Show that you read the article, and care for its well-being, by adding at least a minor edit before you object."

I don't really think this is really useful as a blanket recommendation. If a nominated article has no references, for example, I don't see how correcting a comma somewhere will either make the reviewer more capable of noting that the article hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of passing without them, or make the impact of such a statement less traumatic for the nominator. Better, perhaps, would be something more like: "When objecting over relatively minor points of style... a minor edit before you object." Even then, however, I'm not sure that having this point adds anything of value. Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After taking a look at the page, I guess this stipulation was removed. Good thing too. Reviewers are certainly under no obligation to make edits, nor should they be. Ryu Kaze 17:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

looking good
V good. Do you not go out on Saturdays? Anyway, you solved the 'proportionate' one pretty well. And vg to have points for nominators too. I like this. (dbuckner) 86.132.252.232 07:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DB. It's good to get some positive feedback. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Recruit more people
The heading says it all. I don't know all that many people on the Wikipedia, but I know there are some highly-respect editors (professional and/or Wikiepdian admins) who ought to be involved in processes like this. User:Jmabel, User:Cberlet, User:SamSpade, User:Chalst, User:Piotr, User:Banno, (only two of these are philosphy editors,BTW) are all examples of people I have come across in the last six months in one forum or another. I don't know if these partiuclar people have the time or interest, but I think you get my point. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

CIVIL + What is a featured article?
...should be adequate to cover the issues this page raises. "Be respectful"—yes, of course. We don't need an entirely new guideline to make that clear. And I'm not at ease with the rest of it, which seems to over-explain a rather simple process. The title itself, "How to review a featured article candidate", smacks of instruction creep. Marskell 13:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, that was criticism without a suggestion. While eating lunch it occured to me that this could be moved to "Featured Article FAQs" or "Featured Article pointers" and re-worked. Specific, practical questions (can I use Harvard refs? Is there a minimum length requirement?) could be answered there. The excess stuff could be dropped. Marskell 14:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great suggestion. This article is currently a (slightly biased) restatement of policies already covered elsewhere, doesn't focus on the real problems that come up in FAC and FAR, and will make FAC and FAR harder, not easier.  To help nominators and reviewers, we need to focus on the specific misunderstandings that do occur on FACs; the examples you gave better reflect the voice of experience on FAC and FAR.  Let's do it. Sandy 14:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides, what this article was trying to do is already covered by experienced FA reviewers. These pages provide a better starting place for the FAQ.  Sandy 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jengod's page is a good set of guidelines for nominators. This page is supposed to be a parallel set of guidelines for reviewers, and is coming along nicely: DBuckner and Slimvirgin, in particular, have done a lot of valuable work on it. Your view seems to be that all problems in FACs are the fault of nominators and supporters, but that's just implausible. The debate over FA status is obviously prone to tension and heated exchanges, and so, as with any other such potential flashpoint, it's worth trying to head off potential problems. This page could do that. Sam Clark 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Coming along nicely", "valuable work" and my views are "just implausible" are judgments that don't carry much weight (for me), coming from an editor who has experience with exactly one (highly atypical) FAC, and no FARs. I'm inclined to value the input of those who have seen these issues over a longer period and have seen not only the problems on FAC, but the issues at the other end, at FAR, as well.  Sandy 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm trying to be civil here. What I characterised as 'just implausible' was the belief that 'all problems in FACs are the fault of nominators and supporters'. If you think that's true, by all means defend it; if you don't mean that, say so. You're right that I have no previous experience of FACs, but so what? I do have a lot of experience of debate in tense circumstances. Are FACs so completely unlike any other such negotiation that none of that experience counts? Is WP so unlike all other collaborations that it has no need for the kinds of standards which work well elsewhere? I don't think so. Again, if you think I'm wrong, please tell me why. An appeal to superior experience is just another kind of appeal to authority. Sam Clark 15:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out elsewhere, my professional work is reviewing things. I have done this for a living for a long time, and I have seen nothing like this, BY FAR..  Why is that?  Because one thing that p*sses people of more than anything else is the idea that they cannot object to reviewers' comments, that objections are not 'part of the process'.  So, part of our process is that, according to certain rules and procedures, objections are fed back.  Then, up to a certain defined level of iteration, we stop.  This works well.  Reviewers like me think very carefully about the points we make, because it looks bad if we are challenged.  When we are challenged (not very often, because we have already thought quite hard) we think hard again.  People on the other side are thinking the same way.  Often they do not challenge, even when they don't agree, because the price of an easy fix is cheaper than an iteration.  So it goes.  The reason I am going on and on like this is that all my professional experience tells me this is a badly designed and flawed process, but that it could easily be fixed.  Dbuckner 16:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely people should not be disinclined to object to reviewers objections. The question is, insofar as we need to qualify how to go about that, whether we need a guideline that essentially deals with behavioural issues that WP:CIVIL already covers. Let's come up with the specific content issues (such as acceptable referencing systems) that may come up during an FAC and list those on pages we already have, such as What is a FA?, or make it short-and-sweet on this new one. A guideline suggesting things like "you must understand syntax to comment on syntax" or "don't be emotional" strikes me as accomplishing little and somewhat anti-wiki in that it implies some reviewers are allowed in the door and some aren't. Marskell 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not imply that some reviewers are not allowed in the door. Are you saying reviewers shouldn't be checking the facts?  'Be sure of your ground'.  Dbuckner 07:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya, I'm saying reviewers shouldn't be checking the facts.


 * More seriously, I'm suggesting we stick to the facts and leave the excess stuff about reviewer behaviour and whether they understand grammar aside. So, as suggested below, we want people to understand image policy before commenting on images. Have a sentence or two directly addressing images and leave it at that ("fair use is discouraged" etc). And as I say, I don't see why "What is an FA?" cannot handle that. Marskell 08:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Marskell - the existing policies and guidelines should be sufficient for reviewers, and I'm worried that these instructions will do nothing more than discourage potential new reviewers or be used as a basis to chastise existing ones. In addition, it tries to cover too much ground: advice to nominators,reviewers, what makes an FA... For example, not every reviewer is reading for the same set of issues (those reading for style don't need to be expert in WP:OR) so the advice on what makes an FA article is irrelevant to some reviewers. Yomangani 15:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, you wouldn't want a reviewer making objections on the grounds that the images were in violation of our image policiecs, if in fact that reviewer was not familiar with our image policies and turned out to be quite wrong. Ditto with syntax and everything else. It boils down to: if you're going to lodge an objection, make sure you know what you're talking about. I can't see a single disadvantage in making that point. Just as the writers of FA articles have to adhere to high standards, so must the reviewers.

It cannot be the case that all problems in the FA process are caused by nominators, and none are caused by reviewers. I've been watching the FA process on and off for around 20 months. There were problems caused by inconsistent, and at times irrational, review standards when I started watching it, and apparently they continue. Let's try to get them sorted out. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But the same reviewer that made comments on image policy without familiarizing themselves with the policy is just as likely not to read these guidelines before commenting. I doubt current experienced reviewers are likely to take tips on how to review either, so these guidelines end up being instructions to the type of potential new reviewers who are predisposed to read up on the guidelines and policies before launching in anyway. Yomangani 23:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point, Yomangani, but at least with this, a nominator would be able to point to something solid if faced with an unreasonable reviewer. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can somebody point me to the conversation where it was claimed that "all problems in the FA process are caused by nominators, and none are caused by reviewers" - it seems to be a recurring theme, but I can't find where this was claimed by a reviewer. Thanks Yomangani 23:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been implied in several places. I think the point is that there are two parties in the process: nominators and reviewers. Therefore, why not have guidelines for both? To have guidelines for only one group suggests that the other group doesn't need them. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not sure what this is about
but at least with this, a nominator would be able to point to something solid if faced with an unreasonable reviewer. Is that what this is about? Do you want to restrict reviewers, even though 1) the process currently weeds out unreasonable objections with no problem, 2) the bigger problem is lenient reviews that let less than worthy FAs through, 3) we don't have enough reviewers as is, and 4) further restrictions will only discourage more reviewers ?

Can anyone show me an example of an article that failed to get through FA when it should have?

As far as I can tell from reading 3 different talk pages, this proposal has the support of 4 people: one knowledgeable in FAC, and three editors involved in one bad case who have rarely set foot in FAC. Are we going to "make law on a bad case" and based on input from people who aren't familiar with the issues ?

I still don't see anything in this proposal that addresses the real problems with FA. It is dealing with imaginary problems. Sandy 03:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I already mentioned on another page, I have considerable professional experience of this kind of process. Any such process, as SlimVirgin says, will guidelines for both sides.  Dbuckner 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, you keep asking the same questions, and I keep giving the same answers. :-)
 * Once again: I do not believe that good articles are failing because of silly objections because Raul would not allow that to happen. I do believe that the experience of going through an FA &mdash; the pre-Raul stage, if you like &mdash; and of watching other people go through it, could be discouraging good editors from nominating their work, or from becoming reviewers. If you want to attract more good editors, either as writers or readers, the process has to be an intelligent one, and more or less consistent.


 * Who is Raul?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Raul654 decides which articles become featured. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You've several times said you believe one of the real problems is, as you said above, "lenient reviews that let less than worthy FAs through ..." Can you give some examples? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave a current example on FAC; I'm sorry you missed it. Spending some time on FAR will allow a broader sampling than the one I gave.  You might want to have a look at Libya; I know both Tony and I encouraged the author to do the needed work after its promotion. I hope it has improved, since it appears on tomorrow's main page.  I do see that Peta was in there yesterday. You will see objects from myself, Peta, xyzzy, and you'll find that Tony, unfortunately, never got to it. Sandy 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of an FAC that should not have been passed (see here for a version round about the time of promotion). It's about to lose its status four months after gaining it. Marskell 08:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marskell. There are some interesting sentences e.g. "In 1185 the Hvar diocese is formed of which Lastovo is mentioned as having joined." :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the kind of stuff my cousin Dimitri has me translate and then manages to get published, signed and praised by a bunch of neuroscientists, philosphers and the Vatican itself because of his connections in the Church and in politics over here. LOL!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And then, a legitimate writer likes Franceso comes along, and is upset that he is held to a higher standard :-) One problem we see all the time is people aiming for or comparing to the quality of a current FA, without realizing that the current FA might not meet criteria.  We shouldn't be restricting reviewers; we should be enforcing standards, and doing whatever we can to encourage stronger reviews from tougher reviewers; there will always be fan support.  It's really sad to demote articles on FAR only months after they were promoted, and all of us who work on FAR spend a lot of time trying to salvage them, but it's often not possible because we don't have the content knowledge.  It's doubly sad that good reviewers, who try to prevent this, have to get beaten up in the process.  Sandy 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But what are the criteria? They seem extremely vague. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The FA criteria are vague? I don't think so, but if that's the case, then that is where the work is needed, rather than adding instruction creep to reviewers on a separate page.  SV, you said on the FAC talk page that you had given an example here of an FAC that should have passed but didn't.  I can't find it here: can you point me to it?  Thanks, Sandy 14:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor tweak
Just letting you know I've merged "be unemotional" and "don't be neurotic" because they seem to be the same point, and more importantly, I was worried that the phrasing would encourage editors to cite this page by saying -- "See REVIEW! Don't be so neurotic!" which could be considered uncivil. -- (Lee)Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 02:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
This looks pretty good (there, I've satisfied the "positive points first" requirement =), although I just removed that part as instruction creep). A few points:
 * On precedent: The problem with this as it is currently stated is that standard reference works are rarely written to deal with an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article is not an essay, nor a treatise, nor a novel, nor a journal article, nor a textbook, nor a newspaper article. Rare indeed is the style guide that explains what "encyclopedic prose" and "encyclopedic style" really is.  In fact, if you've ever seen one, let me know. Furthermore, what's an "authoratative source"?  A textbook?  A journal article? I've got textbooks with gaudy colors and flashy diagrams and huge margins and centered bold text and no inline citations.  I've read journal articles where the authors constantly refer to themselves.  In my opinion, our only real standard can be the Encyclopedia Brittanica, because it's professional, generally well written, and, most importantly, it's an encyclopedia with a scope similar to that of Wikipedia.  Even then, however, I feel that we can improve on them, but that's only going to occur by consensus, not by dogmatically throwing style guide references around.  I'll be the first to admit that style guides can be useful, especially when all or most of them agree, but I don't think it wise to include a clause that says to the nominator "find a style guide supporting your position, and suddenly the reviewer's objection is invalid."  Such a statement would have a number of detrimental effects, such as making WP:MoS completely useless and turning WP:FAC into a style guide battleground.


 * A v good point. I had encyclopedias in mind (clearly not textbooks or journals).  For philosophy, I use the SEP and the Oxford Companion.  The former has the benefit of being online.


 * The "be proportionate" guideline and the "be sure of your ground" guideline could be combined. For example, I see no problem with being adamant and blunt about the phrase "its cold outside today" because it's clearly wrong.  Few FA nominators will have any problem with me saying "Its/It's is misused throughout the text".  However, if it's something I'm not sure of, I shouldn't be so adamant.  For example, a month or two ago I commented on a nomination on an Indian subject where the English went back and forth between -ize and -ise.  I thought that India used British spelling, but I wasn't sure. So I said that one system or the other must be selected, and that I thought that British system was more appropriate.


 * I am concerned that this is just instruction creep. The page is part common sense, part synthesis of other policies and guidelines, and part content from user essays.  The fact that it combines all of these is somewhat valuable in itself, but at the same time, is it really necessary?  I'm especially concerned about requirements like the one I mention above (now deleted) where reviewers are told to mention positive points first.  Obviously, that's a great idea, but if I see an article that has an absolutely 0% shot of passing FAC, I'm not going to preface it with "wow, hard words like 'incidentally' and 'excellent' are spelled correctly" and then get into how the prose is poor, the references are lacking, the images carry non-free licenses, and whole areas of the subject aren't covered.  I feel that if this guide is going to be useful, it should be as sparse as possible.


 * The original draft had a bullet point, since removed, about 'being realistic'. If something clearly doesn't stand a chance, one has to say so (and this doesn't conflict at all with being sensitive).  I once had a letter from a journal which began 'I know there is nothing worse for an author to have their work rejected ...'.  Or something like that.  It worked.  Most journals signal at a very early stage whether it's a case of needing a bit (or a lot) of work, but basically stands a good chance, and 'hopeless case'.  Dbuckner 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback? Am I off-track here? --Spangineeres (háblame)  03:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A rename might be appropriate, now that guidelines for both nominators and reviewers are present (as I think they should be).
 * "I am concerned that this is just instruction creep" - me too, and all of your above points as well. This page is pretty decent, but I'd much prefer a page without any "policy" tags - with an emphasis on explaning things rather then giving guidelines. For example, when people come to FAC they often meet "late-breaking" style guidelines that they have perhaps not read yet. Or, perhaps they are jarred at the relative nitpick-iness that FAC has (and is rifting even more) compared to most peer reviews. RN 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "How to..." is an off-putting title. It has a patronizing and elitist feel. Unfortunately I'm not inspired enough to come up with an alternative today that doesn't suffer from the same problems. Yomangani 10:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Reviewing a featured article candidate" might work. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be fine if that was all it covered, but it has advice for nominators too, so it needs a title that encourages nominators to look at it. Yomangani 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Content policies
I rearranged this section to remove the requirement for reviewers to be familiar with the policies. Hopefully they will know the policies before reviewing, but to make a comment on a POV statement it is not essential the reviewer be familiar with WP:OR, and insisting they know all these policies before reviewing would be discouraging to potential new reviewers. I also moved WP:BLP to the bottom, as it will be applicable only in some cases. Yomangani 10:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reviewers do have to be familiar with the policies, Yomangani, or it'll lead to arguments. You can't have a writer following the policies, and then an objection made based on a misunderstanding of policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Yomangani's point though is that if I know the style guide like the back of my hand but am clueless with regards to references, I can object over style issues. Reviewers need understand only those policies which they refer to in their objection. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a fair point. My concern is that I've seen reviewers make suggestions that weren't consistent with the policies or guidelines. We could say something like "Before giving advice or posting a criticism, make sure you're familiar with the policies or guidelines that govern that area. For example, reviewers who focus on images should make sure they've understood the image policies." Would that work? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's the idea. --Spangineeres (háblame)  14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that works for me. Yomangani 14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What is an FA?
I'd like to see some discussion of how an FA is supposed to be different from a GA. It is my experience that writing a featured article has two components, 1) getting really good content and organization, which carefully balances the many deeply competing goals of WP (comprehensive, and global in scope, yet short, easy, jargon-free and unpaid, NPOV and yet no OR, lots of citations yet No OR or POV, etc.) 2) getting the content to a high degree of polish, by conforming with lots of style manuals and guidelines, salting the citations in-line, etc. The What_is_a_good_article page says "However, they are written, and the good article review process is designed, primarily with short articles (15kb or less) in mind, for which prose is less likely to reach the 'brilliant' standards required of featured articles, and in which inline referencing is not as important. Long articles which meet the GA criteria should also more or less meet the FA criteria." Is it really still the case that we intend the main difference between good articles and FAs to be LENGTH? Should a failed FAC, cut itself down to 15K to try to gain GA status? Surely that's not our goal. If not then we need to think about what exactly 'brillant' prose is supposed to mean. I assumed when I first read this, that it meant "inspired and moving prose," but from watching the process, I now think it means "polished to a bright sheen." If so, then maybe we intend all of the really good content issues to be part of becoming a good article, and the in-line-referencing, and highly-polished prose to be the FA stage. Or maybe part of the mis-communication between nominators and reviewers is between these two different notions of what could count as "brilliant" prose, and if so we should clarify as much as we can, because I frankly misunderstood this when I first read it. The Wikipedia: What_is_a_feature_article official FA guideline is that an article should be "well written in the sense that it "the prose is compelling, even brilliant" (which sounds like brilliant isn't required, and that compellingness is more important than polish). There is no requirement about how polished it is except "it exemplifies our very best work" and "it complies with the standards set in out in the style manual and relevant wikiprojects."  But both of these could easily be fulfilled by an article which was "best work" in terms of content, but was adequate rather than exceptional in terms of polishing.  If we really mean "highly polished" to be part of the requirement for FA, then we need to clarify.  Writing a "well-written" article, and editing an article to being a "exquisitely well-edited" article seem like totally different things to me, but Tony1 seems to think in Wikipedia: How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a that being well written requires being "exquisitely well edited." I cannot agree. But maybe being exquisitely well edited, or "edited to a brilliant sheen of polish" or something is an appropriate goal for FAs. If so, then we need to add it to the list of requirements for FA (and it is a great way to distinguish FA from GAs.) Bmorton3 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That FA and GA are hard to distinguish is a problem with GA. GA is misconceived (or at least has been misused). Scrap it or radically re-work it is my opinion. The length bit is there because WorldTraveller initially conceived of it working it that way. Marskell 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed but doing so might help us get clearer on what FA is supposed to be. Bmorton3 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it is worthwhile to periodically revisit the question of what FA is supposed to be, and how well we're conforming to that, FA isn't defined by its relationship with GA, nor should it be. Regardless of whatever flaws it may have, FA came first, and it's a more widely accepted process with a better definition of its role. GA was modelled on FA, not the other way around, and I think the length issue you bring up demonstrates how that process is still finding its role in Wikipedia. -- (Lee)Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The real problem is the rest of Wikipedia
The FAC process needs to incorporate "expertise" (sorry, folks, I had to use the evil word) in the specific areas of knowledge that each article deals with. Then, this FAC process, enhanced with substantive evalutions from experts, should be applied to the WHOLE of Wikipedia. The result would be an extroadiny improvement in quality. That's all I have to say at this point. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. Unfortunately, there aren't that many expert Wikipedians.  One project that attempted to provide expert peer review was Scientific peer review, but it didn't last long.  For many subjects, the most one can hope for is someone with an extensive undergraduate education in the subject or a closely-related subject. A number of ideas have been floated for generating interest among experts, but it's slow going. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true. In philosophy there are a number of well-qualified people working in Wikipedia.  There is Prof. Irving Anellis, a noted historian of logic, who has done excellent work on the Bertrand Russell article.  There is Prof. Sarah Uckelmann, medieval scholar.  I worked with her on William of Sherwood.  Prof. Randall Holmes is a well-known logician who has contributed .  Here on this page we have Prof. Brian Morton, also Prof. Sam Clark has contributed to the debate.  Franco himself, while currently working outside academia, has contributed outstanding high profile articles on philosophy.  Not to forget Mel Ititis, who is anonymous, but is a lecturer at Oxford.  Dbuckner 07:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However, while I continue to try to persuade these experts to make a wider contribution to WP, most prefer to stick (probably wisely) to their own specific subject area. The result is that we have many articles on detailed and specific subjects, for example Brian's excellent page on the somewhat obscure Supposition theory but nothing of any quality on any of the 'big subjects' like Philosophy, Metaphysics, Truth and so on.  There is also a very serious problem, as Franco has noted time and time again.  If you work on a specific subject, it is highly unlikely it will be attacked by trolls and vandals.  I have articles written years ago for which I am still 'top' on the article history page.  But try that on the big subject areas, like Truth, and you are the victim of constant vandalism.  Of two types. One the ordinary kind of graffiti artist.  Second, far worse, the kind of person who imagines they are an expert on philosophy (after all, philosophy is just your opinions ain't it), whose arrogance and egotism is in inverse proportion to their knowledge of the subject.  If there were some recognition of experts in WP - even just the tiniest 'edge', this might change rapidly.  But it won't.  Dbuckner 07:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Supposition Theory isn't my area, it was just a place I saw a hole when I was new enough to Wikipedia philosophy that I didn't understand how many holes there are here. I have tried to help art and aesthetics neither of which are my area either, but are front-page style big topics.  I actually used WP Truth in my intro to philosophy class last semester, and it turned out to be pretty good when I wrote my syllabus, but too unstable to be appropriate by later in that semester.  Additionally, it is challenging to write a front-page big topic in a way that is NPOV and encyclopedic, and global in scope, no OR, etc.  A detail topic can be a quick summary of the literature, and still somewhat short, without getting into those topics.  But it would take a large professional book to be genuinely NPOV about truth, trying to distill that to a short article for non-specialists while still juggling the many, many competing goals of WP is much harder.  And if one were to do a brilliant job of all that, there would still be a host of writing vs editing issues, and that is before then trying to defend the stability later.  I'm a pro-am advocate and I like that credentialed and non-credentialed folks are on a level field here, but as many realize, stability is a real problem, and there is very little reward system for contributing material.  There is a reward system for polished final product articles, but little (that I've found yet) for defending stability, working on front pages, or writing first pass copy.  What does this mean for reviewing FACs?  Once again let me plug distinguishing the contributions of writing and editing, both are important, but do not criticize a well written article as being poorly written because it is insufficiently edited. Bmorton3 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Franco has also expressed this view (on his talk page, I think).Dbuckner 07:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See here. Didn't turn out so well as far as I understand. Marskell 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Clearly the bar was in the wrong place.  But in what sense has Wikipedia worked out 'well' for subjects like Philosophy? Dbuckner 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dbuckner and Bmorton are exactly right. I've written 5 FAs, all on rather obscure subjects (Welding is the broadest I've attempted so far), and they're easy to maintain, most of the time.  Unfortunately, while a wiki is a fantastic way to generate content, it's not so good at maintaining the quality of existing content.  There has been discussion about stable versions in the past, which may, when implemented, partially address this problem.  With stable versions, changes won't happen to articles immediately, but will instead be periodically integrated into the article that everyone sees.  That way, edits can be reviewed and rejected in groups, and maintaining articles like truth would be significantly easier.  Question: is there a Philosohpy Wikiproject?  I'd strongly recommend that you start one, so that all you philosophy experts have a place to go where you can identify articles that are being assaulted by bad information and POV content.  I'm surprised that there are this many of you around, but this isn't the first time I've ever been wrong about something :).  Don't waste the opportunity though&mdash;work together, and I bet you can both maintain and improve the philosophy articles on Wikipedia. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  12:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

adding (slightly) to this document's scope
At present, this page states that one of its aims is "to help nominators prepare their articles for the nomination process". I see there's a section at top called "The FA Process". Would it be acceptable to add a little bit of extra explanation -- maybe a paragraph -- of how the process works here? One of the things I've been concerned about in the FA process is the fact that the details of how things work -- how long discussions last, how consensus is determined, who actually promotes the article -- are not presented immediately on the FA or FAC page, where those who are new to process might learn about them. This is something I've brought up before in previous discussions, and there's been some aversion on the grounds of wanting to keep explanation concise, but it seems as long as we're drafting this guideline, such information would fit with the mission of preparing editors for the process. -- (Lee)Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea (I proposed something similar on the FAC talk page yesterday (or the day before depending where you are)). It's fine to keep a concise explanation on the page, but nominators should be able to find out details of the process without having to dig for them. Yomangani 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I gave this a go. I had text that was about a paragraph, but wound up expanding it to two. See what you think. Helpful, or no? -- (Lee)Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I found that helpful Bmorton3 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Knee-jerk objections
I've heard a great deal of talk about "unthinking supports" and nothing about mindless, spiteful objections. What it this, for example?

""Weak Object - lacks good photos". Taking a quick scan through the FACS, I then discovered that this same person "supports" an artcile which has no references, in-line citations and which is opoosed by about 25 other people. Do such people realize that there are really no such things as "philosophy photos"? There are illustrations every once in a while that you can find on Google,, but you have to walk through fire, cut out several internal organs,  chew poisoned gum, and smile at the same time, to find out what their copyright status is, who made them and how to contact them. You usually get no response. What nonsense!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I never submitted Existence because I couldn't find a picture of it.  Dbuckner 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem solved ->
 * I agree that the objection may have been nonsense, but that should be as obvious to Raul as it is to you. Let's not discourage people from reviewing because you don't think they are qualified. Other reviewers will pick up on the lack of references - not everybody needs to be an expert on every policy to effectively review an article. Yomangani 10:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the picture very much. Shall we put it in Existence?  But I'm still getting my head round the "Raul" thing, which neither I nor Francesco knew about.  I though WP was an entirely consensual, non-hierarchical thing.  Turns out in fact that one cannot object to criticisms raised by reviewers, however silly.  Then at the end of the day, the whole decision is made by someone who the reviewers apparently regard as a being of almost supernatural ability: who understands every aspect of English and American grammar, every nuance of use in all different English-speaking countries.  It's a funny old world  Dbuckner 10:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea is that the reviewers build the concensus and then somebody has to make a call on what consensus has been reached. It's the same as in many other processes in WP (except they normally have a higher number of potential "closers"). If you have one Support or one Oppose among 20 views to the opposite, it's likely to get short shrift unless it's backed up by some outstanding arguments. As with the other processes we are trusting the closing admin to do something more than just count the responses, but something less than conducting the entire process themselves.
 * (At least that how I think it works...waiting for the explanation of the process as discussed above ;)). Yomangani 11:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, Yomangani, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from doing anything. I don't know about others. The reason I mentioned that case above was just to show that sometime there can be unthinming objections, just as there are unthinking supports. Hopefully, people who support or object based on some reflection and with some justification

will predominate over the others. That HAS been the case with my three FACs, I think. So I'm not really complaining, just discussing and learning here. (-:--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I probably sounded a bit harsh with the "Let's not discourage..." comment, I apologize. I agree with you, but I think even poorly informed scrutiny is better than no scrutiny. Nominators don't often ask supporters to justify their position since they are just glad of the support ("How dare you support my nomination!" isn't often heard), leaving it to other reviewers to call them on their opinions. Poorly thought out criticism often comes in for flack from both other reviewers and nominators, so I don't see it as much of a problem. Yomangani 12:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose the question to Db and Francesco would be: how is instruction creep going to alleviate the problems you are concerned about? Because that is what this page is at the moment. Again, let's make a highly condensed list of FAQs/pointers and tack it to "What is a FA." Much is already there (such as the fact that pics are not needed for an FA). Marskell 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Working toward a resolution
I've taken some time to look over this page and the discussion that's gone on about it, and I think it's about time that suggestions for overall resolution were suggested — as well as some criticism of the subject matter itself that will hopefully put everything in deeper perspective for everyone involved. I'm not here to preach or to suggest that I'm more of an expert on FAC than anyone else here. I'm just here to provide some commentary and explain things as I see them in the capacity of both a frequent nominator and regular reviewer, while hoping that it can help get this issue sorted out.

I'm going to begin this process by commenting on the title of this page and then touching on each of the suggestions directed toward both reviewers and nominators. I'll address additional issues from there.


 * Page title: Poor choice, as I'm sure most of you are already aware. The page contains suggestions for both reviewers and nominators, so it isn't titled properly. What's more, the fact that the advice seems mainly geared toward reviewers could be taken to mean that there's currently a persistent problem with reviewers — or at least a bigger one than there might be with nominators (which isn't to say that there's currently such a problem with either group; it's just to say that this is how it could be received). Reviewers don't need to be discouraged anymore than they are already are. Many nominators and reviewers can find FAC to be an intimidating place
 * Suggestions for reviewers:
 * Be tactful — This is already covered by the universal Civility policy. It's a little patronizing to be a reminder here
 * Be sure of your ground — Highly patronizing (possibly even condescending), and not very helpful given that it's already a stipulation of What is a featured article? that an FA "complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects". It's also a little redundant of the requirement that an objection "must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed".


 * Furthermore, this is somewhat inappropriate, in that it suggests that someone should be an expert (a subjective title, usually only agreed upon in the face of a degree) before they comment on something. Jimbo Wales has already stated that there's to be no elitism among members and that Wikipedia is to remain an open community. For that matter, this one line is particularly unnecessary: "...contributors may be upset if told that their grammar or spelling is wrong". Sure, if they're told it's wrong, it actually needs to be, but that goes without saying, as an objection "must provide specific rationale that can be addressed". But, if it's wrong, it's wrong. If someone gets upset when told that "they're" grammar or punctuation is wrong, they should — for lack of a better way of phrasing it — keep in mind that they asked for criticism of the article. Criticism can be both negative or positive, and when asking for some, one needs to be prepared for it. Of course, criticism should be polite, but then all that just comes back to Civility in the end, which — along with the requirements for objecting — covers this suggestion just fine, in much fewer words and without the discouraging demand for reviewer expertise that could be abused very easily.


 * What I mean by abuse is that some could easily use this stipulation to say "This reviewer's comments should be disregarded. They've never published a book in their life, mustless gotten a degree in English". It is something that would be used to cultivate an atmosphere of elitism and something that would be utilized to disregard comments that were deemed unfavorable. It's guaranteed to be exploited


 * Be responsive to challenges — This is really just redundant of Civility and "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed"
 * Defer to precedent — Not a bad suggestion in all honesty. While most cases would probably already be easily covered by the stipulation of What is a featured article? that an FA "complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects", it is good advice that one consider recognizing other style manuals with suggestions that allow for the implementation of certain stylistic applications
 * Be proportionate — This goes without saying and is basically a more long-winded way of saying "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed"
 * Summary of section — To summarize thus far, pretty much every one of these things is covered elsewhere in more straightforward terms, and I imagine many regular reviewers would take offense at being directed to such redundancies, while many potential reviewers would be discouraged by the implication (likely unintentional, but given the context, it is the implication) that they must have documented expertise in a subject before their opinion will be considered valuable


 * Suggestions for nominators:
 * Be ready — Already covered by What is a featured article?. This is, in fact, the entire purpose of that page
 * Be unemotional — Good advice, and not something covered equally by Civility
 * Be civil — Obviously covered by Civility and No personal attacks
 * Explain your topic clearly — This largely seems to be an extension of Civility along with some Etiquette mixed in. In any event, it's not really all that necessary given that it's already a stipulation of What is a featured article? that an article have "a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections", and given that we have a Lead section page that applies to all articles. This page is also linked to from the main page of Manual of Style
 * Know your sources — Advice that assumes a lot and is potentially discouraging to nominators. What if they've already used all the references they have (those references technically being sufficient) but are concerned that they shouldn't nominate their article because they don't have an extra reference for every point they've made? Some would also feel that they're expected to purchase and read a book on writing when What is a featured article? suggests that the on-site Manual of Style will likely be sufficient. This stipulation creates a conflict with what's already established on What is a featured article?, implies that editors are expected to pour their money into purchasing a book for their volunteer work, and suggests that the Manual of Style is inadequate and not worth consulting, all of which will only contribute to confusing and discouraging nominators
 * Summary of section — Basically the same thing as the previous section: it contains things covered elsewhere in more straightforward terms, and though regular nominators may not take offense at being directed here, potential reviewers would certainly be discouraged by these suggestions. I hate to reference "What Jimbo said" twice in a single edit, but he's emphasised that we must be open — and clearly so — to newcomers. I do not believe these suggestions are conducive to that desire


 * Policies and guidelines:
 * The reminder of the four content policies is pretty much redundant of what's in What is a featured article?, with the exception of the reference to the content policy on living biographies. A simple edit to the second section of the criteria page could cover this
 * What an article should contain is already covered by What is a featured article?
 * What an article shouldn't contain is inferred by what they should contain
 * Summary of section — Pretty much redundant, but with a sensible addition that could be made to the already existing criteria page


 * References: Already sufficiently covered by What is a featured article?, as well as the suggestion that one consult the Manual of Style where applicable
 * The lead section: Redundant once again of What is a featured article? and Lead section (referred to on the main page of Manual of Style and linked to from the FA criteria page anyway)
 * Basic checklist: Simply reiterates What is a featured article? and what could easily be added to it

Summary of page: It's pretty much redundant all the way around, with some specific suggestions that would likely serve only to offend or discourage editors and reviewers, both existing and potential. On the positive side, it does offer a few points that should be added to the more straightforward, less inflammatory and already established What is a featured article? page.

Suggestions for resolution:
 * Add Suggestions for reviewers: Defer to precedent to the "Supporting and objecting" rules at the top of Featured article candidates
 * Add Suggestions for nominators: Be unemotional to the "Supporting and objecting" rules
 * Add mention of the Biographies of living persons content policy to the Featured Article criteria on What is a featured article?
 * Review What is a featured article? for any other changes that may need to be made
 * Scrap How to review a featured article candidate or turn it into a redirect to Featured article candidates

All of this seems like an adequate compromise that prevents redundancy, prevents the potential for offending present and future reviewers or nominators, and prevents the possibility of discouraging present and future reviewers or nominators.

Comments on these comments and this proposal
I wrote them so I hope they're sound and that the advice offered is something everyone can agree upon. Ryu Kaze 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ryu. This hits the nail on the head for me (a much better description of my own opinion than I've seen fit write :). Perhaps someone should take a copy of "What is..." into userspace and work out brief compromise addition, then present it here. Marskell 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Marskell, and you're quite welcome. I realize we're still early in receiving feedback on all of this, but I'll take the initiative of taking the "What is..." page to my sandbox and working on it. Ryu Kaze 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Response to "Summary of [Suggestions for nominators] section") The FA process as it stands at the moment is NOT CONDUCIVE to newcomers. I am still pretty new, and it is just not conducive, it is damn intimidating.  Further, goal #1 of FA is "It exemplifies our very best work."  That is itself not conducive to newcomers, our best work will emerge from experience with the processes and strengths and weaknesses of the medium.  It is important to provide many places for newcomers to feel welcome and contribute, but FA may be one of the places where that is not possible.  More importantly it is whitewashing the current process, to criticize attempt to help newcomers as being "not conducive" to newcomers. Bmorton3 19:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Response to "References" commentary) Nope, both are far vaguer about references, perhaps we should precisify them. Neither says anything about how much referencing is expected.  Bmorton3 19:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Response to "Suggestions for resolution") Maybe also clarify how much referencing is expected for FA. Bmorton3 19:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. You make some constructive suggestions, and I agree that we should look into these. I personally think the line "It exemplifies our very best work" is redundant and agree that it can be offputting to newcomers as the criteria instead of the objective. I also will acknowledge that we should maybe try to give an idea of how much referencing is expected. Ryu Kaze 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Expression of deep frustration), if "it exemplifies our very best work" is redundant, then I no longer have the slightest clue what an FA is supposed to be. I thought that was the whole heart of the issue, and the whole goal of FA status.  If anything, everything ELSE on the page is redundant (or rather clarifications of point 1, in an effort to prevent the kind of counter-productivity that we experienced last week).  Isn't the point of the FA process to be offputting to newcomers?  Because if that isn't the point, the process is broken and in need of wholesale revision, because that is the result.  I can't pretend to have much clue what kind of revision to the process is appropriate, and I have tried to suggest only very modest ones (like seperating the "well written" goal from the "well edited" goal).  But if the goal is to make newcomers want to work on getting articles to FA, that goal seems to be failing. Bmorton3 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, FA certainly isn't designed with the intent that it be offputting to newcomers. What I meant by "It exemplifies our very best working" being redundant is that Featured Articles are supposed to be our very best work, so it's rather repetitive of the purpose to make the criteria for our very best work be that it is "our very best work". As you said, the rest of those stipulations are establishing what constitutes "our very best work", which is why the first stipulation needed to be removed. Ryu Kaze 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

These are the changes I've made so far to What is a featured article? (viewable here):
 * I've removed the first stipulation ("It exemplifies our very best work") and turned it into a description that comes before the criteria are listed, as this line is redundant of what Featured Articles are supposed to be anyway
 * I've added recognition of Biographies of living persons to the criteria and rearranged the wording accordingly
 * For the purpose of providing readers information for when they should supply references, and some suggestions as to how they may apply them, I've added "for specific information concerning when references should be provided and how extensively, as well as for suggestions on how they may be applied" after "see Citing sources"). This will serve to direct readers to exactly where they should go for information on when they should cite sources, how much and how they may do so
 * Made the line "The following guides focus on the most common problems in nominated articles" more neutral by rewording it to read "The following guides offer some editor's views on satsifying Featured Article criteria".

Thoughts? Ryu Kaze 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also added my proposed changes for Template:FAC-instructions to my sandbox now. Ryu Kaze 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that no article on Wikipedia was required to be factually accurate, that we are only required to meet the (vastly lower) standard of being "verifiable, not true" see Verifiability.
 * And let me plug once more for the importance of seperating "well written" and "well edited." We could alter clause 2 to "It is well written, comprehensive, verifiable, neutral, well edited and stable, and sensitive" and then make a new 2e (moving the old to 2f) "(e) "Well edited" means that it has been carefully proofread to ensure the text is free from typos and errors in spelling and grammar, well copy-edited, and polished to a sparkling sheen."  I think it is important that we seperate the notion of being well edited from the notion of being well written.  I have articles that I believe are well written in the sense required here, but they are not yet well edited (or if they are I can't tell because I'm too close and I'm not a good editor).  If they were nominated for FA and then attacked for poor writing I would be pissed off, and less likely to contribute valuable writing to WP in the future (especially when I could be spending the time doing OR instead).  But if they were attacked as not yet well-edited, I would be greatful for the help in improving them.  On What is a Featured Article, Lee Bailey made a fairly similar suggestion. Bmorton3 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like we should spent more than a 1 sentence header saying what the goal of FA's is supposed to be before setting out the criteria, but I have no idea how to further specifiy that. Bmorton3 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points. I'll correct the factually accurate thing, try to emphasise the difference between well-edited and well-written, and see if I can come up with a longer opening than the one sentence. Ryu Kaze 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going to remove the "factually accurate" wording, adding some explicit references to Reliable sources and WP:NPOV would not be amiss. The standard of sourcing expected of FAs has generally been rather more stringent than everything that might possibly fall under verifiability. Kirill Lokshin 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. Good point. I'll see about making some adjustments there.


 * I've addressed your concerns, by the way, Bmorton. Ryu Kaze 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added what you suggested, Kirill. Thanks for the input. Ryu Kaze 22:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice, but the neutrality point has too many parenthetical remarks and semicolons now; it looks like something I'd write ;-)
 * Another (very minor) point to consider is whether we can make this more readable by removing the "Wikipedia:" prefix from links. Kirill Lokshin 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposal is generally sound, but is missing any in-depth explanation of the process of FAC review itself. The current sentence doesn't really cut it:

''Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured article status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.''

It doesn't need a lot more but something closer to what is currently in this document would be useful. While I'm commenting can I ask for comments on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/New_steps_to_FA a proposal that came out of a discussion on the FAC talk page, and which puts forward a couple of other ideas for preparing first-time nominators for what might be a bit of a shock after the generally easy going Peer Review process. Yomangani 22:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to provide a more detailed explanation of the FAC process, yes. I've noticed that some nominators were completely unaware of who User:Raul654 is, which suggests that they weren't thoroughly informed of process. I'll also check out that page you mentioned, by the way. Thanks for commenting. Ryu Kaze 22:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've added a more thorough description of the process. Good call. Thanks for taking the time to provide input. I'll check out that page of yours now. Ryu Kaze 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've finished going through the revisions I've made to polish the wording and structure. I think it's good to go now, so I'm just going to await further input from all of you. Ryu Kaze 23:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, by the way, to everyone who has provided input so far. Ryu Kaze 00:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Ryu! Your changes look very good to me -- I'd certainly support what you've come up with. -- (Lee)Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, Lee. Good to see that you weighed in on this discussion as well. Thanks for the comment. Ryu Kaze 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, can it be assumed that everyone's in agreement with these revisions? Ryu Kaze 14:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm now putting forward the final motion for reviewing these proposals for inclusion. The discussion will take place here. Please offer your input if you haven't already. Thanks in advance. Ryu Kaze 16:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding redundancy
Any ideas to avoid redundancy with Featured article advice? I obviously wasn't aware of this page when I started what became that one. Maybe refocus this one on being advice for reviewers? Having too many repetetive guides isn't good, and I'm concerned that these two are redundant with other style guidelines. Just some thoughts. - Taxman Talk 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is redundant, and instruction creep. Sandy 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I have to agree with Sandy. Ryu Kaze 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps important points from this could be built into Featured article advice? I'm not sure. --Spangineeres (háblame)  12:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can locate anything in this article that isn't instruction creep or already included in WIAFA and other Wiki policies, I'd agree with merging it to Featured article advice. Sandy 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I clarify which article you mean by this article? This one, Taxman's, both or another one I don't know about? How many proposed version of variations on this advice are there now? I've lost count. Anyway, the info the FAC process should definitely be saved, as it isn't available anywhere else (apart from Ryu Kaze's rewrite of the FAC page). Yomangani talk 12:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably useless
I've had serious doubts about this page from the beginning. But I think I've come up with an alnertative that is absolutely NOT redundant and that takes aim at the real problem we're all dancing around here: philosophy editing. I suggest a guide on "how and how not to copyedit and reveiw philosophy articles". As I've said in many places, and I still maintain, many of the "prose" objections on the Hilary Putnnam FAC (sorry, it has to be mentioned to provide context) were of the sort: "italics are not used in text", "first-person language is non-Encylopedic", "questions are non-encylopedic" and so on. However, these things are an essential part of philosophy writing. You will find them used systmetically in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philopshy, The Encylopedia of Philosophy and the Oxford Companian (standrad reference works). I'm not going to give up the practice and I sincerely doubt that anyone else who writes about philosophy is inclined to do so. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Francesco, the "real problem we're all dancing around here" is not philosophy editing. Philosophy is one tiny part of a very big encyclopedia.  The philosophy articles can be dealt with via a Philosophy Wikiproject.  Sandy 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my purpose. I was trying to get the philosophy editors who are spending all of their time over here, to help write a "manual of style" for philosophy articles over on the already-existent philosophy Wikiproject. But no one is ever home over there, you see. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also don't feel that philosophy articles are a particularly big issue for what's been discussed. In any event, if it were, I'd think a better article header than that would be in order, but also, wouldn't it be better to try making an addition to Manual of Style instead of yet another FAC-related page than never gets off the ground? I don't personally want to get involved in a discussion on the use of italics and first-person language or even reporting on philosophy topics, but I can understand the concerns that one might have with the presence of such stylings in philosophy articles, or any article. Or, at least, the concern with first-person language.


 * While such styling is regularly used in a philosophical context, I think the question to be asked here is this: "Is the Wikipedia article trying to be a philosophical report or is it trying to be a report on philosophical reports?" Given that the answer is the latter (all articles here are technically supposed to be such things, which involves an attempt at a particular uniform style), it would be best to follow suit with what everything else would do when making their own reports.


 * That said, in the proper context a first-person perspective is fine, no matter what page you're working on. If you're taking a quote where someone has used first-person wording, I'd encourage using it there. Ryu Kaze 12:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Franco raises an example of two of the problems this page was meant to address: global prose standards vs. local style conventions; and correction of errors vs. imposing opinions about good style. Philosophy (like other technical subjects) has its own prose flavour and usage conventions. I'm thinking of things like using the first person, rhetorical questions, using italics to indicate technical terms, and appeals to intuition (which are not the same as weasel words, since they're typically intended to bring obscurities to the surface so that they can be examined, not attempts to get away without citations). These issues can't be dealt with by the Philosophy Wikiproject, because the conflict over them is between philosophers and FAC reviewers, not amongst philosophy editors. That's why contributors here have been trying to set out guidelines:
 * 1. for distinguishing errors, which need correcting, from issues of prose style, on which there is no authoritative point of view; and
 * 2. for deferring to relevant precedent, allowing meaningful responses to objections ('You shouldn't use the first person' - 'the Stanford Encyclopedia uses it', rather than 'sez who?').
 * The central point is surely this: FAC is inescapably a tense process, because recognition of nominators' work and the publically-perceived quality of WP are both at stake. In any such tense process, guidelines for all involved are useful. There is currently plenty of useful advice for nominators, but not enough for reviewers and about the process as a whole. Hence this page. This isn't 'instruction creep', because it fills an actual gap. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ryu has brought up the practical proposal of a philosophy section in the "manual of style." My only question for reviewers, then, would be: would you take the contents of such a thing into consideration when making objections about "prose style?" If I pinted to such a manual and it said "italics are used to indicate techincal terms in philosophy", would this be not be sufficient to rebut such an objection?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Francesco, have a look at WP:MCOTW and Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles). There are certain style issues which may differ in medical articles from other articles, and perhaps you will understand the different roles by looking at how the WikiPhysicians have handled these issues.  These are handled within Projects: again, this is not an FAC problem, and never was.  Your article, if anything, is an example of how well FAC can work:  it will end up with one of the highest percentages of support I've seen recently.  These problems are not FAC problems, and Wiki is not only about philosophy.  Sandy 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ease up, kid!! I was simply asking a question and you've answered it. Thank you. SHEEEEEEEEESH!! I though Italians were rough.---Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Francesco, I don't know what I said above that led to this response: my intent was to give you a helpful example that might help resolve the philosophy dilemma.  It wasn't intended to come across as rough, rather to show you how other Projects have addressed similar issues.  Sandy 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, nobody thinks that wiki is only about philosophy, and I've argued just above that these are FAC problems, because they're problems about how nominators and reviewers negotiate over how to meet FA standards. I make the argument using philosophy examples because that happens to be what I know about, but the same points can be made for other fields. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, the apparent tone of a couple of you is starting to get a little harsh (apologies if it isn't, but that's the price of transmitting text anywhere in the world: it travels without a voice). Not that I haven't had my own harsh word or two with people in discussions, but you don't want to sow any hard feelings where it's not necessary, especially after everything's pretty much calmed down.


 * To answer your question, Francesco, I would certainly recognize style suggestions brought up in the Manual of Style if they could be included there. I mostly agree with Sandy here. I think this isn't so much an FAC problem as it is an issue of style expectations. These expectations could come to light anywhere, but particularly in an FAC. If there are certain ways of expressing things related to philosophy that can only be done by way of implementing methods not normally used (as is the case with medicine-related articles), then most certainly a philosophy-related MOS page should be constructed, and probably would be accepted.


 * While a WikiProject might not necessarily be the obvious route to take, I do think that it could potentially help with getting people of like mind together to come up with an addition to the Manual of Style that would explain style expectations and exceptions for philosophy articles. Really, that should be the goal shot for here, I think. If that were implemented, FACs — and everything else on Wikipedia — would need to recognize it. So this isn't an issue of needing to create guidelines for how FACs are reviewed, but, rather, an issue of addressing a need to revise the expectations with which quality is measured. Such expectations should be revisted regularly to ensure that they account for any new situations that may have arisen. For instance, the particular standards for FAC above were a little outdated, so I've proposed several revisions, taking into account criteria, as well as the behavior of both nominators and reviewers, but adding only that which is really needed.


 * As FAC criteria regularly depends on the MOS, if it becomes outdated, then this will be reflected by FAC. This is why the focus needs to be on MOS and not FAC-only suggestions. Ryu Kaze 14:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Scaring off the newcomers from FAC??
Well, I can't prove any of that scientifically. But you've certainly scared off one old-comer (me). I'm not going through it again. It's not worth it. Where's my paycheck?? name-recognition?? All extremely hard work and no reward, except ferocious syntantic criticism, alphabetizing of interwiki links, peronsdata, blah, blah, blah, blah. Nonsense!! The FAC system is ridiculous. Period. Good day. umm....once more, please remember,1) IT's ALL VOLUNTARY!!! 2) it is far easier to sit back in judgement than it is to do the actual work. Good day. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The FA process is about making the articles the best they can possibly be. It is not a place where everybody just can collect a reward no matter what condition the article is in, because we are afraid to hurt the nominators feelings. It has to be strictly business and if you know you can't take it, then you might consider to just write the articles without nominating them. For me the reward is that somebody else might enjoy the article. If you are looking for money or glory then you are the wrong place. --Maitch 09:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. I was still a bit on edge even when I write the above. I might nominate something or not. It's a free choice, of course. I've come down (or rather up) from the hyper-depressive state I was in a little bit, though. My real problem, Maitch, is, in part, that I cannout find the right place which you are referring to. But this is not the fault of anyone on Wikipedia. As an aside, I was wondering what this page is still doing here. Has it been merges with other text or shoud it be deleted or what? Not much is going on.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this proposal is dead. The text doesn't match the title. --Maitch 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The majority of discussion has gone here based on the proposals made above under WP talk:REVIEW. If what's been proposed there is agreed upon, I think that this page should be turned into a redirect to Featured article candidates. Ryu Kaze 15:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting
As mentioned right above, since this discussion made its way back over to the FA criteria talk page a while ago, and since the proposals discussed have now been approved, this page's purpose is pretty much done and it should probably be just turned into a redirect to What is a featured article?. If no one objects in the next few days, I'm going to go ahead and do that. Ryu Kaze 23:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm going to assume everyone's okay with this and go ahead with it. Ryu Kaze 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)