Wikipedia talk:Mentoring for FAC

Troubleshooters
To complement the process of mentoring – which is think is an incontrovertibly good idea – I'd like to suggest that you might want to make use of other editors who have specific skills or interests and would be willing to help the nominator fix specific problems that may arise during the pre-FAC processes (or possibly in the early stages of FAC itself). Personally, I would certainly try to help with issues concerning accessibility, or more general technical questions, including templates, where I can. I was wondering if, for example, might be willing to lend some of her expertise with image copyright problems to FAC-newcomers? Perhaps others can identify editors who would be able to help fix other perceived shortcomings? I know I'd use as the first point of contact for any concerns I had about close paraphrasing or possible copyvios. Of course, it might be unfair to suggest increasing the workload of Nikki or MRG, but an ounce of prevention applied pre-FAC can be worth at least a pound of cure during (or after!) a FA candidacy. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to pre-review images, or sources for that matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it might be useful to create a table; user, topic speciality ("Physics and history, no pop culture") and issue speciality ("Good with sources and writing, images are a mystery to me"). We could even include a FA count or something. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If it has an FA count, take me off the list. WP:WBE is bad enough; we don't need to spread the high-score-table mentality even further. Either people are experienced, or they aren't. (It's not like a "high score" on WP:WBFAN is some kind of badge of perfection, given the number of outright fruitcakes on that list.) &#8209; Iridescent 16:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, point taken, a count wasn't actually what I was envisioning (even if it's what I said). I was thinking about it being a space for something like model articles, but even as I'm writing this, I'm not convinced that here is the right place for that. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Six months on...
Just out of curiosity, what has engagement been like? I haven't noted any nominations where mentoring was mentioned. Has anyone been approached, or worked with a potential nominee? -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been approached about Balfour Declaration, with correspondence taking place at a peer review page, initiated on my talk page, currently waiting to be asked to take another look. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I worked with an editor on one article and eventually decided it wouldn't be suitable for FAC. I know Wehwalt did at least one -- Taylor Swift, I think -- and I just saw another request on someone's talk page but can't remember who it was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Mentors interested in helping with psychology pages?
Hi! I would any of you have interest in mentoring psychology related pages? I reviewed the list of mentors and topics, and didn't notice anyone specifically mentioning social sciences or psychology, though several people described their interests as broad or open. One page might be Cognitive behavioral therapy, with a team from the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT.org) potentially helping with content generation.

I would love to get good mentorship involved from the beginning so that we don't repeat a lot of the mistakes that academics and content experts tend to make when they try to write Wiki pages!

Thanks very much for any suggestions or interest! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

New Albion article
Hello Mentoring FAC editors,

I've been seeking assistance with New Albion to bring it to FA status. Assistance has been spotty. I was fortunate to get a comprehensive GA review done in 2019. From what I see in other GA reviews, review of the New Albion article''' was rather detailed. Since then, I've added to and subtracted from the article. In July, I posted the article for peer review with the notion of pursuing FAC. was, overall, very positive and made a few encouraging suggestions. Other than that, the review languished so I closed it. While I'm somewhat experienced as an editor and can read the FA criteria, I understand the value of FA editors' direction and advice. If no one is able to provide a complete mentorship, might someone or two read the article and let me know if there are any prevalent items which need addressing before I post it for FAC assessment? I would deeply appreciate it. Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me, looks to have been Niagara. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. My mistake. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Needs Update
I have asked three mentors listed on this page, and have posted talk page messages on FAC and FAR asking for a mentor. Not one response. I think this page needs a serious update in order to show that some of these mentors will outright ignore requests for weeks on end. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)