Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team

NOTICE: Please put all proposals for future missions at WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission Proposals rather than on this talk page.

Proposed mission
Some editors of the Economics Wikiproject are trying our best to bring Adam Smith up to FA status. Any help you could lend would be most appreciated. Remember (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've copied this request to WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission Proposals. qp10qp (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the FA Team have any way of responding to requests? (Help is best given when main editors are active on an article, which may not be forever, as the case of King Arthur shows.) qp10qp (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike Christie used to organize things, but he hasn't been doing things of late. Perhaps we should take that duty on ourselves? This is obviously an important article. I can give it a peer review as a start. Awadewit (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We could do in this case. But on the general point, this project will only work if a large number are involved. With a very small few active, it will eat too much into the time we need for other things. qp10qp (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should leave messages on the members' talk pages. Not everyone may be watching this page. Awadewit (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps there's a general issue with lack of direction here. This is not a criticism of Mike or anyone else, as I include myself in this, but more an observation that many of us were busy elsewhere before joining up to form the FA-Team, and taking on such a huge project as the MMM has left backlogs in other areas - many of us seem to have gone back to our day jobs. Perhaps we ought to consider appointing an official FA-Team coordinator (if Geometry guy or Mike want the job, that's fine by me!) who can be a contact point for requests, alert team members to what's in the in-tray and generally keep things moving. EyeSerene talk 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it should be possible for us to help out here and there with FA Team tasks if all are chipping in; but it becomes a burden if only a few hold the fort.


 * Being realistic about such projects (which is why I've never joined it: don't like to make promises I'm not sure I can keep), it is likely to either flag or devolve to an individual or small few who make it a main part of their Wikipdia experience. However, I think there are ways of pepping it up. First, we should perhaps remind people to put this page on their watchlist; secondly, instead of having a co-ordinator, I think we should empower individuals to make a first assessment of any request from outside the group (or a second assessment, if the request itself comes from inside the group). In other words, I think that as soon as a request is made, someone/anyone from the FA team should look the article over and decide if it falls into the FAT remit, which I believe is mainly for formatting/preparation help prior to FAC for editors relatively new to the process. That assessor should then have the authority to place the article on the missions list. At the moment there is no obvious way for an article to get on the missions list. If all members have the page watchlisted, they might then help with an article that fits into their interests.


 * If the project continues to lack group effort, I suggest it simply be turned into a request list. People can list articles that they require FA help with, and hope for the best, as they do at the League of Copyeditors page, though I expect there will be a backlog. Or we can merge with the list of review volunteers, which is likewise moribund.


 * Failing all that, maybe we should give up trying to herd cats and go back to the old system of requesting help from one another with articles that need it, for new editors we have met, or whatever. That's how people like Yomangani and I got involved with MMM anyway—because Mike asked us. qp10qp (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have only just noticed the page WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission Proposals, so I have moved the Adam Smith proposal there. So how does a proposal become a mission? Plenty of proposals hung out to dry on that page but still only one active mission listed on our mission page (King Arthur, which is nearing accomplished status). I did unilaterally shove Adam Smith up as a mission, but realised this was unfair on the proposals higher up the proposals page. But it all seems too slow and elaborate to me. The main thing is to help, or to request help, not to discuss whether to help or not. qp10qp (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I expect that if anyone is reading, they are getting bored with my waffling. So let me just boil it down to one sentence: how does a proposal get from the proposals page to the missions page? qp10qp (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Simple answer: none yet has! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) ...hence the need for someone/ones who can decide what we work on (or at least, facilitate a discussion), and then poke team members until things happen. I'd offer my services, although I'm not the most active editor on the team and busy elsewhere with my limited wikitime. It would be a shame to let things die away though. EyeSerene talk 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree; as Awadewit says above, I tried to be the person who coordinated decisions such as this. I've been inactive for a couple of reasons (change of job, involving temporarily relocating the family to another state) and that's likely to continue through August, I'm afraid.  If someone could take on the coordination role that would be great.  I'm willing to do it when I become active again. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Some proposals, then
Looking through the list of proposals, I think some should be promoted to missions. I've just checked the state of the articles, and it seems to me that the articles that have a good level of citations and current active editing are these:


 * Problem of Apollonius FAT member Willow is already helping with this and more help would be appreciated.


 * Indigenous people of the Everglades region This is on GA hold and could do with helping through that stage right now. It could be argued that main editor Moni3 is not a newby to FA; but she is asking for assistance from the FAT team with copyediting, etc. and clearly feels that the extra help will make a lot of difference. It would be a shame if she was turned down here the way Willow was turned down.


 * Adam Smith The Economics Wikiproject have asked for assistance on this one, and they are actively working on the article now.

Would anyone object if I added these to the missions page (and crossed the MMM project off)? Then all, hmmm, that's needed is for members to go out and help. qp10qp (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) (By the way, I am not co-ordinating, just fusspotting.)


 * No objections at all. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

More general proposal
But here's a thought... Perhaps we should have a page such as the MMM one for all the articles on which the FA-Team is working. Essentially, after all, the MMM "mission" was a series of mini-missions; not every member of the FA-Team was equally involved with each article. So people could sign up for individual articles, and some kind of coordinator role would be to ensure that each article was covered in some way. Then there could be discussion as at WT:Mission1, when particular articles needed help or a fresh set of eyes.
 * In other words, rather than seeing MMM as a model for future missions, why not see MMM as a model for how the FA-Team works as a whole? We'd then only directly replicate the MMM model if a series of linked articles (the Everglades one would perhaps be a good example) came up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So for instance, right now I feel my FA-Team contribution centers around King Arthur (though I have been distracted by Peter Wall recently. I'd sign up for King Arthur.  But I'd also watch a central talk page in case anyone says "look, X page is about to go for FA now; can we have another copy-edit from someone."  Or whatever. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Another thing that we could take from the MMM model, and I think it might be handy, would be to set deadlines. After all, MMM took quite a long time to get up and running; then it became quite frantic (in good and productive ways) towards the end. However artificial it is, one condition of accepting a mission could be that the proposer set a deadline: FA by such-and-such a date. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So, thinking about it more, here's a proposal... This is fairly simple and unbureaucratic, requires a minimum of coordination, though perhaps each mission could be assigned a coordinator, and a couple of us could take on the role of informal general coordination. It prevents dispersion and encourages cross-fertilization, without meaning that each FA-Team member feels he or she needs to be involved with each mission.
 * We establish a "missions" page, along the lines of the MMM mission page
 * People are invited to add suggestions to the FA-Team's proposal page, but they have to propose a goal and a deadline. Presumably the goal will normally be an FA nomination, but they may include other stages en route (as in practice was the case with MMM): so a goal could be GAN by such-and-such a date; FAC by such-and-such
 * If two (three? but two seems enough) FA-Team editors are willing to commit, then the mission gets added to the mission page. There, other FA-Team editors can add themselves later, should they so wish.
 * Discussion of active missions takes place on the missions talk page; requests for fresh eyes, copy edits, and so on can be taken there; periodic updates are also encouraged.
 * When the deadline's up, and if it's not extended, the mission is taken off the missions page.

Waddaya think? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that makes sense, at least as a working model that we can refine as needed. It would be especially helpful to have a general signup page rather than (or in addition to) individual mission pages, where we can see who has signed up for what per the MMM model and apply ourselves accordingly. The major drawback I found with our MMM efforts was the sudden descent of half a dozen editors on a single article - it got a little crowded at times ;) I think deadlines are a good idea too, even if they are fairly elastic. We can't achieve much without the commitment of an article's regular content editors (and shouldn't be taking on such articles anyway) so it would be a good way of indicating to them as well as us what's required. We'd also need a mechanism for removing missions as well as adding them; I've done a few copyedits that have been abandoned as editors have lost interest for whatever reason. Maybe that could fall to the coordinator, or perhaps better, the FATs that have been on that mission. EyeSerene talk 07:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Suitably encouraged, I've started to draw up the machinery. Others should of course feel free to edit vigorously.  One thing we do need to do (as Qp suggests) is figure out what's happening with current proposals.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me.  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me. I won't be able to do any immediate assistance, as I'm extremely busy with trying to get a few of my own articles to GA.  Keep me posted on this stuff. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is an excellent idea and would be a step towards evenly reviewing FA proposals. Nice idea  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a promising model. Let's try it! Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Outreach to academicians
It's my understanding that a major goal here is to spawn new Wikipedians who are already content experts. It's my belief that some of the changes I see at Wikipedia...including the existence of the FA-Team...are going to be very attractive to academicians. I just got a pleasant reply from someone at Rice University, who expressed interest but asked me what a "Wikipedian" was and how I could verify that I was one, and I sent this back, I'd appreciate feedback of all kinds:

[begin] I'm not offended at all, in fact I'm glad you asked. Wikipedia is a lot like France right after the French Revolution...everyone takes great pride in not taking any pride and just calling themselves a citizen :) My username is Dank55, and if you click on the "history" and "discussion" tabs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot, you'll see I have a long history of commenting on and changing the article. You're welcome to visit my userpage at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dank55.  If you are looking for any particular type of confirmation, I'll be happy to oblige.

Btw, big things are happening at Wikipedia. We've known for years that there are several things that academicians really want that they haven't gotten from Wikipedia...and that has been partly intentional, I think we were afraid of being pushed around by people smarter than us :)...but many things are changing this year: 1. There seems to be strong support now for a feature that's currently on the German Wikipedia, where all non-logged-in users and some logged-in users won't see vandalized pages in general, they will only see pages that have been "checked", and this may overcome the objection we have sometimes heard from academicians that Wikipedia requires them to "babysit" their contributions. 2. We are working very hard to increase the quality on enough articles so that we can start distributing a printed version of "the best of Wikipedia", probably next year. 3. We have a lot of volunteers now working with academicians to get them up to speed on all aspects of Wikipedia.

If you know content experts (of any kind) who are interested in writing articles but have found Wikipedia a "turn-off", please send them my way, and I'll be happy to answer questions and point them to likely colleagues on Wikipedia.

Dan - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's great that you're trying to do this...Speaking as someone who loves to joke, the "smarter than us" joke was a bit off-key. First, it references an us-them mentality; second, its self-deprecation kinda bleeds over a bit into poor-mouthing one's self... I woulda said several things differently... mentioning that anonymity is an option; mentioning that Wikipedia is the resource of first recourse for many (incl. esp. the younger generation) so that helping it upgrade its quality is a public service... many published PhDs already are Wikpedians, albeit some do so anonymously.. my jaw hit the floor when I found out that a wiki-friend of mine is someone whose publications I had read for class ;-) ... yadda yadda yadda... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, my fingers are faster than my brain...the self-deprecating comment was the main thing I wanted feedback on, because this strikes me as a really difficult call. (You're right, I did it wrong.)  If we include all the things we want to include (which might include anonymity, as you suggest), then it starts to sound more like an essay or a form letter than a personal note, and people read personal notes, they don't read form letters, unless they were already interested.  If I'm writing a personal note, what I want to do in just a few words is convey that a lot of academicians had perfectly good reasons not to participate on Wikipedia before, and we had some role in that, but things are changing.  Not to get too Machiavellian, but the closer it comes to sounding like something that just occurred to me, the more engaging it's going to be.  At the same time, I'd also like to have a longer, more formal reply available, and that should easily mention all the things you say, and more, if I detect interest.  Suggestions? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then babysit they must: that is what a watchlist is for. I'd hope for an auto-email facility tied to an article for those who don't log in regularly. That should be easy to set up. As for the "big thing" of the "checking" system used on the German W, it's an appalling idea. Absolutely appalling. For a number of reasons that I'm sure you can think of. Tony   (talk)  02:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The feedback from the German experiment so far is pretty horrible; on the other hand, everyone admits they did it in a rush because Bertelsmann (Random House) asked them to, in preperation for publishing the written version. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has ever been able to tell me why it's not a dumb idea to hard-copy publish what is quintessential a fluid online structure. Who wants a snapshot? This 1.0 has shown how low its standards of writing and verification are. It will be a total embarrassment, and will gain very bad reviews in the press. It's online for a reason. Tony   (talk)  10:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

thoughts
I'm dark on the idea of offering some kind of service to intending nominators: they will come to rely on it. The whole point of the FA process is to encourage the kind of collaborations that will produce FA standards, and a drive-by wash-as-you-watch car-cleaning service will discourage collaborations.

What would be useful is a register of copy-editors along the lines of LOCE. I don't think a list needs to be content-related, since the nominators are presumably the content experts. When they get to the FAC room, their problems are typically process-related, and don't rely on knowledge of a particular area.

It might be good to have a list of reviewers; unsure. Reviewers need to be rewarded for their efforts somehow.

Aside from that, I can only say that the process will just bumble through as it has done for years, but that we should feel pleased that significantly higher standards are (mostly) enforced compared with even a year or two ago. Tony  (talk)  11:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea is to teach people how FAC works and what the FAC expectations are so that they can do it on their own. So many people have bad FAC experiences. We want to avoid that. None of the projects we have worked on so far have been a "watching process". We have worked very well with the article editors. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's true that this may be, like the PR volunteers list, just another herding of the helping-out process. But King Arthur is a good example of why extra help is often needed. This article is largely written by a published academic expert in the field, but a great deal of work needed to be done by those who knew how to get it in shape for FAC. The consequences of a nomination without that prior work might one fears have been a putting off of the main editor from the FAC process or even from Wikipedia. qp10qp (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Tony's concerns, I agree we have to be careful what articles we help and why. However, if we do this right, we are essentially training editors in what it takes to produce a Featured article - sourcing, MoS, and all the rest (even dashes). Ideally editors won't need to use us more than once. This is not intended to be a wax and polish service ;) EyeSerene talk 09:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Eating my words
I must say I used to proclaim loudly that editing a pile of text was better than starting from scratch, however I may have to eat my words with White-winged Fairy-wren..in any case loads of people have been helpful and I think it is more polished now. I promise I will do more serious articles after this...well maybe not straightaway but I'll get Bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder to FAC sometime this year. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Need some help
See Featured article candidates/Textual criticism.

The help of good copy-editors is much needed. This is a complex subject that needs the caring hand of editors that can make a complex subject to be readable as per the comments made in the bottom of that FA review. Thank you in advance for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Everglades region...
...is now at FAC. Budding Journalist 15:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. I'll take a looksy tomorrow. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, Everglades is at Peer Review. It is the longest article I've contributed to at 63k (readable prose). With the four satellite articles, I have placed them simultaneously at PR and GA, but I think this one needs extra help before it goes to GA. My concern is that its length and detail are too overwhelming, much the way that I can't seem to get through the lead of Roman Catholic Church. I'm asking anyone who has a spare moment to read through and give suggestions. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur - Passed!
Just wanted to let everyone know King Arthur is a featured article as of yesterday. -- Meldshal  (talk to me)  13:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you guys are bored...
There is another teaching assignment that is ending soon (July 21 I believe), where the teacher is trying to get her students to make five articles up to GA status. You could always help out with this, but I'm afraid more help may be needed than the MMM project. The project page is here - User:Piotrus/Teaching assignment. Remember (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

J'Accuse!
After innocently adding my name to the list of participants, according to the house style, I noticed to my horror that the project page was rife with (children: avert your eyes) spaced em dashes. I can only conclude that this project is a subtle attempt by existing FA owners to ensure well-referenced FA candidates fail for MOS-compliance. Fie, for shame! Skomorokh 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shocking isn't it! Let's hope no one moves the FA-Team page into article space: the contradiction would no doubt cause Wikipedia to implode and Tony1 to spontaneously combust. Geometry guy 13:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand is up at FAC
Just notifying everyone. -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  13:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Scattered disc is at peer review
Here. Further help with Scattered disc and Solar energy would be much appreciated. Geometry guy 21:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Information booklet
Let me offer to you our information booklet, which we edited on the Czech Wikiproject Quality: w:cs:Wikipedie:WikiProjekt Kvalita/brožura. The summary is in English languege. You can also translate it whole, using Google translate. PDF version is being under processed, within few days. Any articles, ideas, opinions are welcome (even in English) for the next volume here.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourism in the United States
I have been working on Tourism in the United States, and all the content there at the moment was written by myself. Its obviously an incomplete piece of work, but it seems like an ideal project for the FA-Team. I didn't add a proposal because it seems the project focuses on groups of articles. At any rate, I think some sort of collaboration could bring this article to FA status eventually. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 12:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not just focus on groups of articles. If you have a proposal, please outline it at WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission Proposals. See instructions there. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Random music proposal
If anyone is interested in classical music - December 22, 2008 will mark the 200 anniversary of the first performance of Beethoven's fifth symphony. The article is currently a A-class article, but it would be nice to get it up to FA status and put on the main page for the 200 year anniversary. Remember (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny
We need fact checkers! Please help us out! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit help with Alien (film)
Hi there. I'm wondering if members of this project might have time to help copyediting Alien (film). It's currently at FAC and some concerns about prose have been brought up. I've gone over Tony's guides but I feel I am too close to the text (being the primary contributor) to be able to take an objective eye and work out the kinks. Jappalang recommended that I contact this project, so I'm hoping that one or more members might have time to lend an eye to the article. Thanks very much for your consideration. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Edward M. Cotter (fireboat)
I've been working on this article and would like to recieve some suggestions on how to improve this article for a FA nomination. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with a Wikipedia workshop for cell biologists
My message is not related to Featured Articles, but please bear with me. I'll be brief.

Tim Vickers, whom many of you may know, and I are giving a hands-on workshop in creating scientific articles for Wikipedia at the upcoming meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) in San Francisco. The workshop will take place on December 16th for two hours, from 12:30–2:30pm local time, which is 20:30–22:30 UTC (Wikipedia time). We're expecting roughly 60 newbie scientists, who will be eager to start articles and upload images for their favorite research topics. We're hoping that you will consider volunteering to help the scientists to craft these new articles and give them a good impression of how Wikipedians can pull together for a common cause. This seems like a great opportunity to build bridges with academics, and if we're successful, other invitations from scientific bodies will likely follow. I know this to be the home of many excellent and helpful editors. Please write us to volunteer to help; we'll keep you posted, individually, on the workshop and how it will run. Thanks! Proteins (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please let us know here when any of your articles either get close to or arrive at FAC. I'll be happy to help. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Dan! I hope that the scientists will work on their articles after the workshop, and eventually bring them to GAN and FAC. Tim and I and the other workshop volunteers will be trying to inspire them. If you (or anyone else here) happened to be available during the workshop hours to help out, that would be much appreciated as well. BTW, thanks for volunteering to test my MOS:HEAD-checking script; your feedback will be very helpful. I'm planning on adding other MoS checks once the present script seems OK. Suggestions/requests for other useful programs are always welcome, Proteins (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

North American River Otter FA Nomination
Hello FA Team!

I am a student from WikiProject AP Biology 2008, and it is my mission to get the North American River Otter article to FA status. Anybody willing to join in on the fun is more than welcome to, as I always welcome assistance and support with open arms.

Best regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

--Wikitrevor (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am de-listing the article for now to address some concerns, but I will swing by when I give it another go.

Oil shale extraction
There is a plan to bring the Oil shale extraction article to FA status and renominate it for FAC. Any assistance, such as reviewing and editing, as also as any critical comment is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Revival?
I tagged the WikiProject FA page dead a while back, and that doesn't seem to have been controversial. Although this message might be better suited there, no one watches that page, and it would likely have gone unnoticed.

I propose doing something to reincarnate this project, because we had a beautiful thing going. As I recall, this was supposed to help new users with expertise in a particular subject area but no familiarity with FAC and whatnot get their article promoted. I want to try the exact opposite, experienced editors with little knowledge of a subject trying to achieve an FA. Although this might seem a bit silly, I also propose we do it in a neglected subject area—I'm thinking food. Only nine FAs are in the food and drink category, and just three of those are on actual dishes. I've figured that if a model was written, more users would write about the subject. I completely open to the article suggestions, but just to throw some out, pasta, caesar salad, french fries, etc. And suggestions (or requests for me to leave this page and never come back) are welcome. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink asking for food-smart editors. Mm40 (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Perhaps we could send a generic ("Hey, over here!") note to all the listed members? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If this doesn't get many comments for a while, sure. However, 62 people watch this page. Feel free to do so, if not I'll get around to it tonight. Mm40 (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tennis ... not one FA, nothing, zilch. The area needs a lift and has good editors. My problem with this is that there's already a waterfall of FACs and not enough reviewers. If users who are mentored/helped can agree to learn by doing a little reviewing beforehand, that would be good. Tony   (talk)  01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to help a revival - the project was brilliant before and could be again.  ceran  thor 01:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Tony: I think what differentiates food from athletes is that, even if there are no tennis FAs, there are plenty of other athletics articles to base one off of. I picked food because I often see GA reviews where the nominator has done extensive work on an article only to be told that it's "fundamentally flawed" (i. e. it's poorly organized). If we figured out the optimal organization, as well as what needs to be covered to be "comprehensive", perhaps others will not be intimidated by the fear that their masterpiece may be denied as "fundamentally flawed". If this mission has enough involvement, perhaps our next mission can be tennis-related (I recall hearing that Serena Williams was close). Mm40 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was able to recruit quite a few FA members to do a bit of work on Operation Schadenfreude. There's always the option to help finish off that push as well. Mkdw talk 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Food and drink is a area lacking in FAs, Coffee and Potato are two which have potential which I'd be interested in a concerted effort on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then. In the spirit of being bold, I'm going to make a mission with those two articles. Currently, we have 4 editors. With two articles, three editors per should suffice. If no one more joins soon, I'll spam WT:FAC. If there are no objection within the next few hours, I'm going ahead. Mm40 (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy if you do all the housekeeping templates and such. Maybe one at a time is best WRT prioritising (?) I guess a defined scope of the FA team is good, something like "bigger/broader/more difficult articles within striking distance to get to FA, which just need a significant amount of concerted effort to get over the line" (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like it might be fun in the long run. 20 people working on one (ok 2) article is always fun (minus the edit conflicts :) ) Res Mar 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started the mission here. If you plan on helping out, add yourself after "Users working on". Coffee is currently at GA, so I'm gonna start a to-do list on the article talk page; please watchlist. Additionally, I'm going to spam WikiProjects and WT:FAC. I hope I'm not being overly ambitious... Mm40 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Google collaboration
It's a big job, but a worthwhile one. Details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. --Arcadian (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)