Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/Science FAC symposium

From WT:FAC

 * I've read the Physchim62 thing etc etc. Only one thing jumps out as being something that is really needed: I've seen hard science articles struggle with non-expert reviewers.
 * Would it be worthwhile to have a FAC symposium with folks from CHEM, MATH & PHYSICS Wikiprojects (and possibly others)? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this has could lead to good results. There don't seem to be a lot of those types of scientists willing to review articles, and I'm not sure if they don't know how, aren't interested, or are completely disdainful of the process. The only way to find out is to ask. Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent idea, regardless of my proposal. If you draw up a list of five to ten questions you would like people's opinions on, then post a link to the talk pages of the science projects, I'm sure you will get replies, and a variety of different opinions! I promise to shut up on such a symposium, at least until others have had a chance to post their opinions, because I'm as interested in the result as you are! Might I just propose one question? "Do you think that articles from your field are improved by going through the FAC nomination and review process?" Physchim62 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this idea is interesting and timely. I think the aim should be to attract editors who contribute extensively to math/science content, which is not necessarily the same thing as WikiProject members. When I first contributed to Wikipedia, my perception was that FAC was unsuited for advanced mathematics articles. I still have a test case in mind, but I need a large window of free time to try it. I think interesting things could be learned by asking content contributors in these areas about how FAC could better support their efforts, and how they might in return better support FAC. I think the idea is timely because there are now editors who want to bring advanced content to FAC. The shining example in mathematics is Jakob Scholbach, but there are others. Geometry guy 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issues I see with some of our math/science FAs and FACs are problems with clarity of prose and accessibility; I think we need more layperson reviews as well specialist reviews. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't just about reviews in my opinion, it is also about contributions, especially as contributors can also be or become reviewers. Experts are actually well trained to assess clarity and comprehensibility, because they referee articles for journals on a regular basis.
 * One of my earliest contributions to the FA process was Equipartition theorem. That's not an easy concept to understand, but my main (perhaps only) contribution to the article was to make the mathematics easier to understand: the article is still pretty damn hard going, but it doesn't defer to unexplained mathematics unnecessarily.
 * We desperately need experts to make our technical articles as good, and as accessible, as they can be, so we have to find ways to encourage them. Geometry guy 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal experience has been this: By and large, I'm willing to trust the domain experts on the content of the (largely incomprehensible, to me at least) body of the article. But as I continue pushing for the WP:LEAD to be written in the most accessible manner possible, which may in fact lead to some simplification, I frustrate the science folks. I feel for them, actually. I think both sides (mine and theirs) have valid positions, but their long training in the field makes my side seem... I don't know what word to use, but it's an adjective and it isn't a positive one... perhaps "stupid", although I know they would never say actually say that. That's an issue that we need a meeting of the minds on, in my opinion. I also think some sort of a symposium could potentially have more than a few other benefits. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with any system that relies on WikiProjects. Perhaps the math and science WikiProjects are full of quality contributors, but my experience with the Novel and Film WikiProjects has been dismal. I discovered when I joined them twoish years ago that they were full of fans. The guidelines that the projects had developed for writing articles bore little resemblance to the way films and novels are studied. A while ago, I tried to add a section on "Themes" to the film guidelines and met stiff resistance at the project. I have long since given up working with these projects. Having these projects determine quality literature and film content would lower the bar that we have set for these types of articles here at FAC, in my opinion. I agree that we need to find expert reviewers for all topics, but we can't assume that they congregate at WikiProjects. Awadewit (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The complaint about "inaccessible" science articles comes up again and again at FAC reviews, but are they really any worse than, say, House of Gediminas (to take a recent example)? To write about the history of Lithuanian nobility, you have to us lots of Lithuanian names and lots of history which is not usually taught in schools in English-speaking countries! Even some of the military history articles can get hard to follow in thick of the battle… Physchim62 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issues I see with some of our math/science FAs and FACs are problems with clarity of prose and accessibility; I think we need more layperson reviews as well specialist reviews.
 * SandyGeorgia: I completely agree with you. Many of the science/tech articles are written for an audience that already understands the subject matter. I.e. specialized grad students and above. Non-specialist feedback is very useful, at least to me; the specialists even more so, of course.&mdash;RJH (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Most of the talk above seems positive (though not without at least one splash of irony). Is this something that folks would like to make happen? If so, how? What is the scope (if any is to be defined)? Who will be involved? Where will it take place? etc. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest a subpage of WP:WFA. Scope determined by the boss. Purpose informed by this thread. Advertisements posted to relevant WikiProjects (but see above). Perhaps also give a definite time (this weekend, or is that too soon?) Geometry guy 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/FAC science symposium (or somewhere else, that's not the most important). Ling.Nut should define some sort of scope to channel the discussion. This weekend is probably too soon, but next week would be OK. Discussion needs to be open for several days to give everyone a chance to comment. Open to anyone who's interested: dropping invitations at the main WikiProjects in the physical sciences and maths is a good place to start. I should also drop a note at User talk:Greg L: he's done a lot of work at kilogram, and doesn't want to see it nominated for featured article under any circumstances… Physchim62 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know at one point in this debate I'm entering, but as far as the Physics WikiProject is concerned, we've reviewed what we could. There's this wonderful thing we have going on for us however, and that's a bot-automated reminder that there's an article within our scope that's been nominated. See WP:AAlerts. I'm currently writing an article on it for next week's Signpost (currently located at User:Headbomb/Sandbox5), and we'll try to spam every active wikiproject with a message that let's them know that WP:AAlerts exist, so they don't have to worry about missing PRODs or in this case, FACs. I'll read all of this convo in greater details later today. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, consider adding WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Biology and WikiProject Engineering to this discussion (at the very least).Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Pharmacology is another clear candidate to be added to the discussion: three articles at peer review and one at FAR. Physchim62 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I also echo Sandy's comments about lay reviewers identifying incomprehensible bits which can be made more accessible without losing meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read psychim' idea and while I absolutely love wikiprojects, and believe credential matters (to some extent), I'm completely opposed to a process controlled by individual Wikiprojects. I don't see anything wrong with the current way stuff works, sure it's hard work to get a featured status, but that's because it SHOULDN'T BE EASY. This process is for the cream of the crop, not the "mostly good stuff". There's B class and WP:GAN if you can deal with "being pretty good" but don't care about being the best. Having strict standards means that what gets a star over it deserves the star. Quark failed a few months ago, for legitimate reason, but if it passed, then we all would've stopped working on it. If List of baryons passed on its first try (it split, into baryons a while after getting the FL) then that list would've never achieved the quality it now is. Standards should be strict, not because it makes people sad, but because we should'nt strive for mere OKness, we should strive for excellence. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm unaware of any WikiProject that consistently brings articles to FA standard without the independent review that FAC provides. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no desire to send any work out to the WPs. That was psychim's idea, not mine. i also have no desire to lower standards; anyone who thinks I do has had no chance to read my gripes over the past few months. :-) Instead I hope a coffee klatch and Meeting of Minds will bring them greater participation in, and satisfaction from, the existing FAC process. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Comments on my proposal are very welcome and can be made here. But please let's let Ling.Nut (or anyone else for that matter) develop different proposals for improvement rather than replacement! Physchim62 (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked Mike Christie if we can use a subpage of his workshop. I'm afraid that if we make a subpage of FAC or WT:FAC then some bot or other will mistake it for a FAC nom... I'm retiring for the night now; back tomorrow. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a background in Chemistry, Maths and Physics, and whilst I occasionally review chem/astronomy articles there is no way I would ever write one because of the dumbing down required by non-expert reviewers which emasculates the article (a recent example was acid dissociation constant). I write bird articles because they are easy to pitch at any level, although even then I once had an oppose on comprehensiveness because "there are thousands of field guides out there" (field guides usually just describe the bird and its habitat, no science). The general trends at FAC appear to be
 * within reason, content doesn't matter, as long as it can be understood by a 12-year old (tough luck, hard science)
 * referencing must be completely over the top - not just things that might be challenged, but everything, full stop.
 * style is far more important than substance.
 * jimfbleak (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I was involved in reviewing the Acid Dissociation nomination, and I was one of the ones that thought it was completely unaccessible. Now I don't advocate that it has to be "toned down" until Aunt Jenny from the Knitting Circle of Tilley Road (see Saint-Isidore, New Brunswick) can follow it, but when I, who's doing a master's in physics (aka math doesn't scare me in the least), can't follow an article on a simple subject like acid dissociation, then there's a good chance there's a problem with how things are presented. There was nearly no efforts to explain what the concepts were, or any sort of context giving. EVERYONE involved in the process agreed that the article should not be toned down to the point it became inacurrate, or that we'd need to make sure the previously mentionned Aunt Jenny could follow it, so don't paint us like that's what we were going for. The proper response would've been "Alright, let's see what we can do about that", instead it was "ARGH, YOU STUPID NON EXPERTS ARE THE BANE OF HUMANITY1!2!!1". Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely agree; it was a particular problem with that particular article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard from many scientists who admire Wikipedia on principle but who are not willing themselves to contribute. The vicious attacks that can occur on Wiki review pages may have driven many scientists away. This is a personal as well as a universal issue. I have created or substantially contributed to a large number of science-related articles, but I have received absolutely no formal scientific training. In many ways I am unqualified to review the articles I write. This was highlighted a few days ago with the completion of the first spoken-word Solar System-related article (Oort cloud), which may have "fossilised" what could be a major scientific error I committed regarding the differences or lack thereof between two different types of hypothetical "inner Oort cloud". I do not have the knowledge or expertise to properly address this issue, which, truthfully, should have been addressed during the FAC. Wikipedia needs experts; it always has. Scientists in particular are not difficult to contact, as they leave their personal details on the web for all to see. The problem is finding enough scientists who are willing to take on Wikipedia's occasional raving idiocrats.  Serendi pod ous  13:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I created the page WikiProject Featured articles/Science FAC symposium, but I can't add content tonight. I hope to make a list of Symposium objectives tomorrow. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be a good idea, although I do not completely understand how it will work. Ruslik (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Serendipodous: I can appreciate what you are saying about review attacks and other remarks. Certain types of negative feedback can significantly dampen motivation; I've experienced some of that myself, and I hope I haven't had that effect on others. Perhaps what might be needed is a more limited 2nd stage peer review forum with less anonymity, or at least add a stronger motivation to maintain decorum? Even though wikipedia is fairly open for anybody to edit, I don't think that principle needs to be followed for certain review stages. As long as everybody gets to comment at the final stage, it can still be fair and open to everybody.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As with me. I mainly write about tectonics but it is just a hobby, not a profession (though I plan on it being mine). I think that there is no way to prevent the 'idiocrats' in any area of the encyclopedia, so they just have to be dealt with.  Ceran  thor 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments after movement

 * One thing I tend to do whenever I nominate a FAC (which hasn't been for a while unfortunately) is to advertise the FAC page on the relevant Wikiprojects and talkpages of related articles, to try to bring in some experts who can catch my mistakes. Sometimes I even look at the contributors to these articles and as them to review the article on their talkpages. Formal processes are all very well, but the personal approach is also very effective. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be clear - are we only discussing science and math topics here? I would be disappointed if that were the case, because we actually have many more actual scientists on Wikipedia than say, professors of literature or historians. Wikipedia's success in recruiting scientific experts has been much higher than in recruiting people from the humanities and the high quality of the science articles is more than likely a result of this. Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A small comment on this, and also a reply to Sandy's lack of awareness of WikiProjects that do bring articles to FA standards without going through the FAC process. There is one such a project, and it is the only one as far as I'm concerned, WP:MILHIST. These guys are completely insane when it comes to producing quality material, and they hold themselves up to the highest standards. Their A-quality review easily matches the FAC reviews. Pick any articles in Category:A-Class military history articles and you'll see what I mean. Part of the reason why they produce such high quality content is that they are one of the biggest projects, with the most experts, so I disagree that you have more problems recruting expert historians than we have problems recruiting expert scientists.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely disagree with your description about experts in the last sentence.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * MilHist used to fit that description; standards have declined even there. Their noms are no longer coming in as clean as they did a year or so ago.  They are getting many automatic A-class ratings on what might be fan support, and even some of their A-class articles have recently struggled at FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If true, what a shame. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I write stacks of MILHIST articles, including 10+ FA/A, former coord, and am an amateur history person, whereas I am trained to do physics/chemistry and maths, and yes, there is definitely a much larger proportion/quantity of proper science academics/graduates than history ones. As for the part about better coverage/expert vetting, I would disagree, as there was one regular editor/writer of Vietnamese articles, who did a postgrad in the VN War, but apart from that it's only me, so it seems, writing about old Vietnamese military politics, and the odd family member writing about their dad in the USAF etc. MILHIST has a large scope which is why the article counts are so massive (every countries have wars, and continuously throughout history) but I am not convinced that the density of people to articles is higher for most articles, and for core articles definitely not. The Vietnam War article is much poorer (and also contains driveby POV relics/nonsense) than any general overview on any mathematics/physics topic taught up to late postgrad in US (which doesn't attract nationalist POV pushing or random edits by random people).  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As another example about content POV/reliability, I edit articles on cricket with some FAs, which is very popular on the Indian subcontinent. Some of the subcontinental FA/GAs, some now delisted, were written by folks who sometimes traipsed onto the corresponding India v Pakistan cricket articles and made ridiculously biased edits and were reverted by non-Asian cricket regulars who are not one-eyed...Ditto for history/science articles where they went and claimed (undue) credit for various inventions/civilisations, there are lots of maths professors etc who got rid of the rubbish nationalist theories and so forth. This hasn't happened on military articles, and is more a general problem because the content matter by definition lends itself more to a desire to push nationalist POV, but I would say that for this topic, there are less people from outside involved countries who can understand the topic and as a result the NPOV/POV balance is more likely to be determined by which country has more wikipersonnel. (I have no knowledge of the relevant military conflicts, but from looking at their behaviour on cricket articles, I would have no doubt that the articles are biased).  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I beg your pardon? Perhaps you'd like to take that up with the MILHIST Coordinators, Sandy? I certainly haven't seen any problems with the MILHIST ACR system - it's still reviewing and creating quality-class articles. Skinny87 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have. Multiple times.  Just ask them (or check the archives).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe a checkup now to tell them what you think of the mid-2008 reform...I know the Russian Ground Forces FAR wasn't very pleasing from the point of view of leading from the front (two coords with modern FA credits and one senior old hand just voting keep on a very disorganised article).  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We should be aware that military history is a tiny fraction of what historians study. In fact, military history attracts a lot of amateur history buffs, who largely populate the WikiProject here at Wikipedia. What is interesting is that the study of military history, in particular, has ceased to dominate the discipline itself in the past few decades. So, for example, there are many more social and economic historians now. When I first arrived at Wikipedia and saw that there was a military history WikiProject in particular I was unsurprised - it is what you would expect from a non-academic project. If you look at the FAs on historical topics, they are almost on military topics. This does not represent the discipline in any substantial way. Awadewit (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As one of the Coordinators at MilHist, in fact I mostly agree with Sandy: the quality of reviews there has declined somewhat. I wouldn't (mostly) attribute it to fan support, though—part of it is that we're suffering from the same lack of reviewers that FAC is; less bodies just can't do the same amount of work at the same quality as before. Specifically, I have noticed a decline in prose and MOS reviews as well as source checks. Maralia (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As a retired MILHIST coord (some would say disgruntled I guess), I was a bit of a grumpy old monkey on some ACRs (and maybe WP generally) about inconsistent ref formatting on ACRs, and in some cases, unformatted refs and raw links etc...in 2008 and etc. I think the case was more a stagnation in development, rather than absolute regression. That's improved a fair bit luckily in 2008 since Heuschrecke 10 passed ACR early 2008 even though the sources are completely inadequate. The MOS has improved a lot and I think that most of the regular/proper editors do their articles properly although if they wanted to be annoying and drag their feet and hope that the reviewers cave in to the bare minimum they could (same deal at GA), although with copyediting, I don't think anybody gets a proper workout until FAC and I think copyediting is also the part where the author is least likely to be self-regulating because it can be quite an arduous grind, whereas MOS/formatting etc is at least a formulaic grind and can be done by the numbers.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, we get fancruft on WP:CHEMS as well! We even got at least one perfectly respectable FA out of it… The only solution I can see is to dilute it in the wider pool of of hard encyclopedic content, so that people can see cruft for what it really is, but I'm open to consider other opinions. Isn't WP:FAC at present just a sort of MoS-fancruft? Physchim62 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh? I would like to see some data to back up this conclusion. The fact that the reviewer who reviews the most articles, Ealdgyth, reviews sources, suggests to me that you are wrong, but I await your evidence. Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be an accurate description. It may well be that some reviews only refer to MOS problems, but in my own experience those are by far the easiest fixes to make to an article, and rarely make up a significant fraction of the reviews I've had.  There is certainly a group of regulars at FAC who know the criteria well, but I get some of the best reviews from them, including the most stringent standards on real quality in the article.  Two problems I would highlight at FAC would be uneven application of stringent content review in specialist areas, and misunderstandings such as occurred at the FAC for acid dissociation constant.  Both are symptoms of the lack of specialist science reviewers at FAC.  The latter is particularly sad: a retired professional chemist with time to spare and an interest in writing Wikipedia articles has sworn never to go near FAC again.  There were mistakes made on both sides, I feel: at least one reviewer repeatedly introduced errors into the article, irritating more knowledgeable editors; but on the other hand (perhaps as a consequence) the author interpreted a request for simplification as a request for dumbing-down.  Tim Vickers copyedited the article but was rather brusquely opposed (though I can't find the diff now) and declined to try again.  I think if I could solve one problem here it would be to find a way to introduce content-writers such as Petergans to content review processes in such a way that they are not scared off by foolish reviews and they also do not scare off willing (and capable) helpers.  Mike Christie (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As you mention it, there's a fairly poignant comment (not from me) at the bottom of Talk:Acid dissociation constant: for those who think that WP:FAC helps to improve articles, it's worth noting that the month-old comment is the last on that page. Featured article candidates/Electron/archive1 is another case-in-point of an important and well-written science article struggling at FAC. Physchim62 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about "poignant"; working with Tim Vickers, rather than reverting his edits, might have resolved the concerns there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If sniping is to be the norm here, then reading featured article candidates instead of relying on scripts might have avoided editors calling for your unelected post to be abolished. Physchim62 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey calm down kids, let's stay WP:CIVIL and stop WP:BITEing each other.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as military history A-Class reviews are concerned, I wouldn't attribute any perceived decline in quality to fan support, but merely to the growth of the process itself. When the ACR was first introduced, it dealt with only a few articles at a time, and nominations were largely dominated by FA regulars (e.g. Cla68 and YellowMonkey), who were writing FA-level articles regardless of the quality of the review.  Now, we're regularly dealing with 20+ articles under review simultaneously, submitted by a fairly large number of different editors; as well as a lack of adequate staffing on the review itself.  To put it simply, the review has ceased being an exclusive club, with everything that entails.
 * It's worth noting, incidentally, that overall productivity has apparently increased despite these factors—the project is producing significantly more featured articles now than it was previously. Kirill [pf] 13:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Krill... While I wasn't around back at the time of Cla and YM's domination (having only really started working in MILHIST in September-ish), it seems that now, every day when I check WP:MHR, there are two more articles waiting to be reviewed. I've been trying to review as many as I can, but the sheer volume is almost overwhelming...with Catalan gone, I htink that we have been falling a little behind... (User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST) I've been trying to do more, but... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree with the singling out of MILHIST as having a "stagnating review system". In January 2009, 48 articles were promoted to FA.  Of these, 13 were MILHIST nominations, slightly over 25% of that month's FAs came from our project.  The difficulty of article stagnation is a wikipedia-wide issue, and is not exclusive to our project. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As I mentioned earlier, all posts attacking or defending any content review process are outside the scope of this forum. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

More comments…

 * I generally like this proposal. It would be especially nice if FAC worked more collaboratively with WP:WPTC, rather than the usual "No more hurricanes!" –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Big picture, desired outcome, symposium objectives
I want to thank everyone who's contributed so far. To fix our gaze steadily on the main points, I hope that the discussions won't devolve into elbow-jabbing based on specific past instances (be they at FAC, MILHIST, CHEM, PHYSICS, whatever). I'm hoping to move forward into more general ideas that result in a positive and proactive plan (or plans) of action.
 * At this point I'd really like to invite discussion on the Desired Outcomes and Symposium Objectives listed on the project page. Do they capture our shared goals? Are any goals missing?
 * Discussion or brainstorming on implementation of the goals is of course always welcome, but I hope to spend some time sharpening goals and objectives early on in the game. Put the horse before the cart... Discussion based on incomplete or unclear goals is bound to result in more than one dead end....
 * Thanks Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've structure the list so we can easily reference what objective we are talking about.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some possible goals, drawn from comments above. Note that I'm just brainstorming. ALSO please note that some of the below seem like "small picture" goals or details of implementation (#1 seems to be an example of this); I'm hoping to direct our attention to the "big picture" issues defined (tentatively) on the project page...
 * 1) Comment by User:Headbomb "Instead of explaining what is unclear to them, layreviews defer to experts":
 * Possible goal: Develop a template or guideline that gives metalanguage guidance for lay reviewers' comments on technically-oriented FACs? Just make a notice somewhere encouraging people to ask more?
 * 1) Comment by  User:TimVickers "I advertise the FAC page on the relevant Wikiprojects...I even look ask contributors to these articles to review.."
 * Possible goal: Create a clearinghouse or list that would improve interpersonal networking.
 * 1) Comment by User:Awadewit "are we only discussing..."
 * Possible goal:Expand scope to include all academics?
 * 1) Comment byUser:Maralia (echoed by several others) "we're suffering from the same lack of reviewers"
 * Possible goal: This ground has been covered repeatedly. New ideas very welcome.
 * 1) Comment by User:Mike Christie "find a way to introduce content-writers such as..."
 * 2) Similar/related comment by User:Serendipodous "Wikipedia needs experts; it always has..."
 * Possible goal:This reflects some aspects of the project page. Wasn't TimVickers spearheading a related project at one time? Can the two initiatives be introduced to on another, so to speak, so expert content writers become familiar with (and hopefully begin to participate in) content review?
 * Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pick one
Here's a possible next step. Pick an existing WikiProject, pick an article in it that that WikiProject thinks is in great shape, with primary authors not experienced at FAC. Take it to FAC and those of us familiar with FAC will review it. Then we pick over the review and see what worked and what didn't. That at least will give us (a) concrete data to look at, and (b) if we're lucky, another good science FA. Mike Christie (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an excellent idea to me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I too think this sounds like one viable and potentially profitable plan to be implemented. How can we structure  this  example of implementation so that it has lasting, positive spillovers for both projects? How can we structure it in a manner to meet the maximum number of our goals and objectives? Let's not forget those... still very definitely hoping for feedback on those (see above)  Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good way to identify problems. I'm for this.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the general concept, but would not it be better to review the review process of an article that has already been reviewed. People act differently when they know they are being watched.  Plus the effort is sure to gather more reviewers to the 'featured' review and change the dynamics of the review process.  The problem with using past articles is that it might devolve into finger pointing and defensive posturing.  We will need to keep the discussion focused.  (We see that loss of focus above.)  I suggest that we pick three reviews to review.  The first is one that everyone agrees is done well.  The second is one that everyone agrees was done poorly and the last is a controversial review.

TStein (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Some ideas
Some ideas from Headbomb:


 * SO1
 * The working relationship between projects and processes such as FAC is two-fold, IMO. There seem to be two kinds of stories at the FAC
 * a) A single author works on an article of interest. After a while s/he goes through a process like WP:PR, or he might ask feedback from a WikiProject. Then after s/he is satisfied with his work, or feel that s/he's attain an acceptable level of polish, detail, etc... submits his/her work to WP:GAN or WP:GAC. Then people either contact a wikiproject or complain for a few days that we need science experts to give expert comments, then someone remembers that Wikiproject exists. This adds an unecessary delay between the nomination and the time someone from a WikiProject reviews the nomination. If this happenned in late in the nomination, then the nominator may have lost "momentum" or the "drive to improve" his article, especially if all the concerns listed so far were of the MOSNUM nature (not that these aren't valid, but if you are only reviewed on style, you may find it sad that no one cares about the content).
 * b) A mostly internal wikiproject-wide effort is made to get an article up to a certain standard. After the project is satisfied with what they've achieved, they submit the article to a process like WP:PR to get non-expert attention feedback. The article often (but not always) get to the bottom of the list, and one of the people who hates backlogs reviews it as best he can. The review is helpful, but not terribly so because the article is intimidating (which is why we want it to be PR'd in the first place). Then the project submits its article to GAN/FAC, where people think we need more experts to review it, when it actually needs more layfolks (althought any expert review is also welcomed). Instead of explaining what is unclear to them, layreviews defer to experts.


 * SO2
 * I think that the following two existing resources might prove of some help, especially for SO1a)
 * a)WP:Article alerts. I've written an article for this week's Signpost (which can be found here) to raise awareness, and we're planning to spam wikiprojects with a one time message to let them know this exists. Obviously I'm pushing this hard because it was my idea and want to see it work. But with all modesty, I'm convinced that this is one of the best idea if not the best idea that came up on the wiki in the last year (or years, but I've only been here for a bit less than a year so I wouldn't know).
 * b)WikiProject member lists. About a year ago, I sorta took the reigns of WikiProject Physics. One of the many things that pissed me off about the project (as it was back then) was how completely useless (or nearly so) the member list was. More than half the members didn't participate anymore, and you had very little idea of their area of expertise. So I've flushed the old list down the drain (which can be found here) sometimes in June, and contacted everyone which was on it (as well as those with the project's userbox) so they would add themselves to the new list if they were still participants, this time adding more details about themselves. You can find the new list here. I go through the list every few months or so, checking if the users made contribs in the last month or so. If yes, they are "active", if not they are "inactive". I also remove users which are inactive for six consecutive months, and leave messages on their talk page, so if they come back, they know they need to re-add themselves to the list. A quick comparison of these two lists should make it painfully clear that the new version is more helpful, especially for people looking for experts on a particular topic. If the other science projects could built similar lists (maybe not as fancy as the one we have, but at least one detailing activity and area of expertise/interest), then each project could give the links to the other projects' member lists. Also, the FAC mainpage could link to those lists as well (maybe not directly from the mainpage, but somewhere in the FAC space).


 * SO3
 * Now this where the resident FAC reviewers are better equipped than me to give ideas. However, I got a few.
 * a) If the FAC directors/residents could build a sort of list of specific "Frequently encountered problems"/"How to make your article accessible to the maximum amount of people"/"Things to check/consider before submitting an FAC", then this could help WikiProjects write more accessible articles. Now it is possible that similar things are written all over the 'pedia, but I don't know of any places that brings them all together/has them all at one place.
 * b) There could also be an effort to adapt existing stuff specifically for scientific articles. I attempted to do so with the Physics' Reviewing cheatsheet, but nearly no one uses it (probably because it's kinda bulky and unwieldy). We could maybe ressurect this idea into a "Science Reviewing Cheatsheet" (without all those hiddenboxes this time) and link to it from the Science WikiProjects/FAC mainpage.

Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SO4

Comment on some of Headbomb's idea by Ling.Nut
 * SO1a) Could this be addressed by encouraging FA drives, and publicizing all FA drives somewhere on FAC; perhaps in association with a bulletin board somewhere acting as a one-stop clearinghouse for all science-related FACs ? A list of FA drives might be a catalyst for friendly competition (although some FAs are far easier to write than others, skewing any friendly competition a bit in their direction). Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SO1b) See above. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Sandy can correct me if I'm wrong, but usually the way "drives" seem to work is that it's mostly FA regulars simply reviewing a lot more FA than they usually would, and while there is external help, it's nothing compared to the efforts from the regulars. So that doesn't really increase expert participation by that much. FA drives are good efforts to make when the backlog gets pretty big, but I'm under the impression we're discussing the Science FAC mainly because expert feedback is low. But on the other hand, I'm thinking that maybe the problem is exaggerated (which is not a reason not to have this debate, good ideas are coming out of it). Let's look at the science-related current FACs: Bongo (antelope). That's it. One candidate. I don't see what a FA drive would bring to that article as far as expert reviews are concerned. Contacting WP:BIOLOGY (and/or some of its members, and/or related project) is pretty much all you can do.


 * Perhaps "grouping" nominations like WP:PR does would be a good idea? Broad categories such as "Arts", "History", "Everyday life", "Media", "Politics", "Sports", "Science", "Miscellany" (hurricanes go here :P) would probably make it easier for those interested in sciences to spot articles that are science. Articles like Kylfings doesn't scream "Hey look at me, I'm about Norse Runestones" and if you never heard of Kylfings before, then you need to click on the article to know if this a place, a nomadic people from Eire, a kind of fish, or whatever.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from TomStar81
Lately, it seems that the entire assessment scheme has come under fire in some for or another. C-class met with much resistance, though most projects now implement the system. B-class was until recently a non uniform system until the C-class referendum established B-class criteria to grade from. Now A-class is under attack since the grade seems pointless to some and usefull to others. On the whole, our standards are up, but the reviewers are leaving in droves. Our problem therefore does not appear to be assessment schemes, or quality control, instead it appears to be much more fundemental: we need more personel.

Ironically, our gravitation towards projects and the autonomy they present to Wikipedia may be the root of the problem. In allowing projects to maintain assessment departments and handle article improvement internally projects are allowed to govern there own affairs, but those who previously looked toward a communit gathering of editor for processes such as peer review now find themselves without a variety of articles to look through. Apathy is to blame here as well: my project, MILHIST, where I have served as a coordinator for more than a year, has long taken pride in its higher quality assessments, and like the romans we have allowed our pride to make us apathetic to the oncoming fall. As Sandy notes, even our project has suffered assessment woes since our editors have stopped providing input to articles.

Expertise in article assessment is a wonderful thing, as noted above many who once wrote wikipedia off now admit, some reluctantly, that there is good information here. That we would have compelled such an admitance is admirable, but it means nothing if we can not convey to those on here the importance of the information in a simple and concise way. Adding exertise would only grive our editors away, and that is the exact opposite of what we need.

The fundemental problem here then is not how do we improve the standards, it how to do woo back those who have seen the system work and are now leaving it on the assumption that it will continue to work in their absence. We need our reviewers back since its there input on all matter of things ranging from citations to MoS that allow the PR, GA, A, and FAC process to work. In light of this I would make a few recommendations as to how we can win back our highly acclaimed reviewers and increase the quality of the articles at the same time.


 * Demand/Require more off project reviews: Its true that internal processes work well with regards to internal project quality control, but its also this same mentally thats all but strangled the original puropse of the peer review. Our peers can't review an article if they can't find the article, and most people (myself included) endevour to stay out of other projects review process. Why? I don't know, perhaps some misguided take on the teachings of Plato. At any rate, we need to make our peer reviews processes much more wider in scope, becuase the internal review process here is missing a lot of baseline suggestion material that would go much for article quality.


 * Encourage GA reviews: Through not fault of its own GA comes across to some as a poor way of assessing. This is due in part to the long wait and the perception that nothing gets done in a GA-review. This perception needs to change. GA needs to either be redesigned to focus on Wikipedia in general issues like MoS and RS compliance, or if it already is, then reviews need to find blacker hearts and stop promoting articles that don't meet all the criteria. At the same time, we ought to push harder for GA class to appear in the article history, becuase the more scrutiny an article has before FAC the easier it will be to get the article through FAC without 33-miles worth of unadressed compliants.


 * Pull FACs for failure to clear either GA or A-class reviews: This sounds really cruel, but if Sandy and Raul refuse to list an article before it has a chance to go through GA or ACR then editors will be more incline to take the time to address all the little issues at lower level before getting to FAC. This would also procide two additional benifits: 1) reduce the number of open FACs at any given time, allowing more imput for open FACs from the community as a whole, and 2) improve the article quality by compelling people to reach GA or A class before going to FAC


 * Establish a project devoted to reviews and reviewers: Although we have a 1.0 assessment team we have no independent project that caters to good old fashion reviewers. This needs to change, we need some sort of project or league or something of this nature where programs like the league of copyeditors and the FA Team can be brought to gather for the greater benifit of Wikipedia. In this capacity, a review project would not have members per se, but would function as a sort of hub for projects and editors who need reviewing assistance. I think that if sucha project were to be created a GA task force or something of that nature could be created for editors interst in handling GA reviews and those wishing to get a GA reviewed.

Bear in mind that these are simply comments from my observations on wikipedia and this reviewer absence, and that the above ideas are merely suggestions that I think may help correct the problem. Input is welcome on these comments I have made, but I do remind all responding that I am in the middle of a collage semester and may not respond quickly to inquires. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BOLD suggestion
TomStar81's comments above gave me an idea for improving feedback on science articles (and all articles in general). However this would probably touch GAN/PR more than it would touch FAC. How about we, and I'm gonna invoke WP:BOLD here, merge GAN into PR? While these process are similar different, they certainly overlap quite a lot in many regards. If we merge it with the goal that PR/GAN's goal is first to review the article in pretty much the same way WP:PR does, and if the article is found to satisfy the standards of WP:GAN (which I'm not to clear on, but I think it involves being well-referenced, with good visually support, of decent but not brilliant prose, and decent but not perfect MOS compliance, then it would get promoted to GA status. We could also (I'm less enthusiatic about this however, but still open to the idea) merge all three into PR/GAN/FAC. Everytime an article is submitted it would get PR'd, and upon being PR'd it could be promoted to GA or FA (or neither) if it's found to meet the GA or FA criteria (whichever fits best). Editors would probably feel more incentive to ask for PRs if they could still get a GA status out of it. And those trying to achieve FA status but miss it by an inch would now get rewarded with a GA status instead of the current "better luck next time".

By pooling all human ressoures found in PR/GAN/FAC, we'd get a lot more feedback per article. The GAN and PR backlog would melt in weeks if not days. The drawback is that the number of articles in PR/GAN/FAC would be pretty big (91 from PR, plus 13 from WP:BIO and 18 from WP:MILHIST; 232 from GAN, and 56 from FAC, for a total of 379 active reviews), but we'd also have a much quicker response and more people to do it.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Be bold, Headbomb. Good idea. TStein (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The PR combined with GAN isn't a bad idea, IMO, although I'd like FAC to stay separate to avoid having perfect FA's waiting fir promotion and borderline GAN's being reviewed on the same page and my personal feeling&mdash;I like the idea of two reviews... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too like the idea of have a seperate FA process. I have absolutely no reservations about a PR/GAN merge if reviewers understand that articles of any quality can be submitted even if no GA is sought, and that a GA could be awarded regardless of whether or not someone specifically asked for it. My suggestion of merging PR and FAC was being bold for sake of being bold. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reservations about combining Peer Review and GA Review. GA Review has well-defined objectives and criteria, while I'm not sure about PR's. I also think the proposal fails to address the problems that seem to cause most heartache - shortage of reviewers, and seriously sub-standard articles submitted for both GA and FA review. I'll cross-post at WT:GAN and ask for comments to be made here. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I sorta like this idea, except for the "human nature" aspect: GAN people might sorta be proud of being GAN and PR feel the same about being PR. Would a merged PR be PR or GAN? I think the latter, since disposing of GAN means all those green dots suddenly become... antiques. That might upset a whole host of green dot owners. So merge PR into GAN instead. Will PR folks enjoy being folded into GA?? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what the human problem would be. I'm not suggestion we dispose of either GAN or PR, I'm saying we should merge them into "PR/GAN". If people really object to one merging at the other's page, then we could create a page named PR-GAN, merge both there, and preserve the old PR and GAN as historical pages.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) But the question is, would the PR-GAN or GAN-PR process have the power to promote GANs to GA? If the answer is yes, what's the difference between this idea and 1) a "This project is officially inactive" template on PR and 2) telling PR folks, "hey, you guys, go on over to GAN"? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah they'd have that power/authority/whatever you want to call it. The difference between what I'm suggesting and simply saying to the PR guy "Hey move over there" is that this new "PR-GAN" process wouldn't have GA status as its primary goal, it would have peer reviews (more precisely, article improvement) as its primary goal, with GA being awarded when appropriate. In that way, it's more like saying to the GA guys "Hey, move over at PR", but they wouldn't lose their "job description" either.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This sounds like multi person Good Article reviews, which I think has been rejected. It seems like peer review could use the help, but I don't think GAN has the extra manpower.  When you say "By pooling all human ressoures found in PR/GAN/FAC, we'd get a lot more feedback per article. The GAN and PR backlog would melt in weeks if not days."  Those two statements seem to contradict each other.  Why would requiring more work (since apparently there will be more feedback) decrease the backlog?  I don't see why the backlogs would melt away, but if they would, I'd support this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those editors quoting WP:BOLD need to go read it: WP:BOLD for instance. It has virtually nothing to do with proposing radical changes to community processes: it is virtually impossible to obtain consensus for such changes. GA is currently enjoying a period of maturity and growth; PR continues to provide a valuable service. Neither process is likely to want radical change right now, and it is off-topic here. This forum is supposed to be about discussing ways to encourage better interaction between science articles/projects and FAC. Proposed solution: change GA and PR? You're kidding right?
 * I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I hate to see editors wasting their time on something which will never fly. Geometry guy 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know it'll never fly? Especially since there seems to be an overall positive response to this suggestion. And we're throwing ideas to improve feedback on science articles in general, and to refuse to discuss an idea based on the idea not being proposed at a page with PR and GAN in the title is baloney (see WP:BUREAU). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be a great idea to ask those who actually review at PR and GAN. Just sayin'. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes obviously. The PR and GAN people are aware of this symposium, so they could give comments on it, but right now it's at pre-fetal stage. I shot in the dark, and I seem to have hit something. I'll make a full-fledged proposal focused on merge PR and GAN sometimes in the next month or so for all of wikipedia to weigh in. Right now it's way to much of a brain storm to make any real decisions regarding that.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will fly either, because some people build part of their on-wiki identity around participation in PR or GAN, respectively. It would help the problem with a shortage of reviewers at GAN, I suppose. But. I... would be sincerely surprised  if it becomes reality. Just go ahead and ask though. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree it will not fly. PR and GAN operate differently and therefore cater to different reviewer styles, levels of commitment, and review preferences at the time. In GAN, one reviewer commits to seeing the article through the recommended changes and then makes a decision whether the article fulfills the GA criteria. In PR, a series of reviewers may choose to make varying levels of comments, from quick notes to in depth reviews. Some articles receive an intensity of content review in PR that they would be unlikely to receive at GAN which is geared to ensuring an article has attained  the  GA criteria minimum. In my view, combining these reviews into one would remove options and flexibility and therefore may serve to decrease the level of reviewer commitment and even the number of reviewers. Currently the GAN format serves to do a fair job of attracting reviewers. Although there is a backlog, the number of GAs is increasing at satisfactory rate, I think. I would be against changing this.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More thoughts
First I will agree with Headbomb and TomStar81.

Summary of my comments about Headbomb and TomStar81 ideas:
 * Better communication about what articles are being reviewed through bots (good)
 * Checklist of what is required (good but needs lots of tweeking)
 * Encouraging people to review technical articles outside of knowledge base (very good but need ideas how)
 * Enforce 'chain of command' by not allowing articles to by pass A or GA (essential)
 * Establish reviewers project (good)

Headbomb's idea about the WP:Article alerts bot is certainly one of the incremental steps we need to take. I also agree that stronger management of the projects through better membership list managment is important, although that is somewhat separate to the purpose of this symposium I think. The cheatsheet could be a good idea if it were re-worked.

TomStar81 is correct that off topic reviews are important, but I can't imagine that demanding/requiring it will help without a carrot. (See my article exchange idea below.) I strongly support His two points about encouraging the GA and A reviews as well and making them mandator. In any system it is important to enforce the chain of command. If everyone goes directly to the top everyone suffers. Not only is the authority of those in the middle undermined, but the person at the top is forced to micromanage and can not govern effectively. This is not about authority but the same principle applies. His last suggestion about establishing a review project is absolutely necessary in my opinion, if for nothing else then by demonstrating its importance.

My comments about list


 * Facilitate an ongoing conversation and greater overlap between the groups.

I interpret this to mean mainly two things. The first is funneling Project members to the FAC. The second is finding ways for the FAC to assist the projects in evaluation. First we need more ways to let people know about how the can participate. People need to be invited and informed about the process. We need to encourage people to watch the FAC page (whereever that is) or maybe even a technical FAC, if it exists. For the second point what I want for instance is better guidance on how to write well. Perhaps they could develop a series of check lists or some other tool that we can use to help with that.


 * Develop an improved strategy for communication between experts and non-experts.

As I stated above I strongly agree with TomStar81 about funelling people to review articles outside of their field. For that I have two proposals:

What I mean by that is I edit magnetic field and periodically I get stuck with how to improve it while at the same time I get bored with it. I would love to be able to say I'll review the xyz page that you are actively editing. Maybe this can be done for people who are interested in reaching FA.
 * An article exchange program.

Peer reviewed magazines do this all the time.
 * Strongly encourage people to review FA when they submit an FA.


 * Establish clear and specific goals for striking a balance between accuracy and accessibility.

The main difficulty with that is that articles vary with how technical they have to be. The only way to establish clear and specific goals I think is to establish 2 levels of technical articles in addition to non-technical articles: soft-core technical and hard-core technical with different sets of goals. I don't like the idea but I don't think it is avoidable. Stringent standards and safeguards will have to be set up though to keep people from portraying soft-core as hard-core to make their life easier, though. If we are to have a FA for hard-core then it should be labeled somehow such as FA-Physics or 'This article is a featured mathematics article which ...'

TStein (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion, TStein! To put it more formally, I'd use as a basis the academic level at which the subject is taught, and suggest the aim should be to make the content intelligible to readers 2 levels below that - subject to a minimum target level of an averagely literate 12-year old, i.e. we don't aim for primary / elementary school pupils. I'm assuming that our aim is not to produce a textbook but to make readers aware of the basic concepts, main issues, and significance of the topic. --Philcha (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A-class and GAN
I like TomStar81's idea above to effectively make A-class and GAN a prerequisite to FA-status: I think this would be a good move across Wikipedia, not simply for science-related articles.

This isn't to say that A-class and GAN are perfect systems, or that one is "better" than the other. They are different processes, which have different people assessing the articles against different criteria: as such they are complementary, not exclusive of one another. Both sets of criteria are deliberately lower than "the very best" so as to try not to duplicate FAC, and also to try to ease the load on reviewers.

If we let articles go to FAC without passing GAN, we are saying that there's no need even to do a basic check of article quality before it is nominated to appear on the main page. Likewise, if we let articles by-pass A-class, we are saying that there's no need even to do a basic check of completeness and factual accuracy before the article is nominated. In practice, we are left with having to find a system which can pick up problems at the very last stage, and across all imaginable subject areas, when these problems really should have been picked up earlier on.

Most of the larger WikiProjects are technically capable of doing GAN reviews, but it's better that they don't do their own. An outside pair of eyes is also a fresh pair of eyes to pick up any problems, and a simple guarantee of roughly comparable standards across the subject areas. However, we could instate a sort of "honour system" at GAN, where a WikiProject will undertake to review an article from another project for each article it puts into the system.

My views as to whether we would even need a formal FAC system on top of all this are well known, so I'll stop there! ;) Physchim62 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not all WikiProjects have viable A-class review processes, and experienced FA writers don't always benefit from a GA review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have long opposed mandatory A or GA as a prerequisite for FAC, though recently I've begun to wonder if instituting it might reduce overload at FAC, both by reducing volume and increasing quality. However, specifically with regard to scientific topics, I wonder if it could be done voluntarily on a project basis.  E.g. let's say that WP:CHEMS agrees that it will require any FAC to pass A-class review first.  Then an interested editor comes along who is not in WP:CHEMS, and nominates a non A-class CHEM article.  If there are CHEM editors available to do the A-class review, the nomination is withdrawn and the A-class review is done; the article can subsequently come back to FAC.  If no CHEM editors are available the FAC review proceeds.  Could that be a helpful way of distributing labour into the projects without requiring them to participate in FAC? Mike Christie (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's seem way too WP:CREEPY to me.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If a topic has 3-5 project tags on it, the burden of getting that many A-level reviews from various wikiprojects is not reasonable. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We already had trouble at Paracetamol FAR because of distinct MOS criteria from WP:CHEMS and WP:PHARM. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Making A class a prerequisite would be a big mistake, as many Wikiprojects, even some very active ones, put much more effort into creating content than into reviewing. In general I don't agree that "experienced FA writers don't always benefit from a GA review". Any article benefits from having fresh eyes look at it, and I've been thanked by experienced FA writers for thorough GA reviews on articles that were heading for FAC. However making GA a prerequisite might be heavy-handed, as some experienced FA writers may be able to take an article from stub to FA directly. If an FA review concludes that a candidate article was below GA class, they could fail it and recommend GA review first. --Philcha (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if what I described doesn't work, is there any other way to engage WikiProjects on a case by case basis? That is, if a WikiProject such as WP:CHEMS is active enough to do A-class reviews, what's a useful way for that project to interact with FAC? Mike Christie (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since headbomb suggested merging GAN into PR (which I think would be better done by merging PR into GAN), could we merge A-class reviews into FAC? If we're talking about articles a layman can understand, I think the answer is "Yes". As for technical articles... I feel less hopeful. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like that crazy an idea. I don't think I'd mind enlarging FAC to AC/FAC, but only if the the A reviewing is the same as the FA reviewing process (aka you don't have articles listed as "A-class nomination" or a "FA-class nomination"). We could define the A-class criteria as top notch content, while the feature criteria would be A-class + top notch style. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely merging A-class review into FAC would merely compound the current problems of reviewer shortage and make them affect much larger areas of the encyclopedia. Much better to merge FAC into A-class review… Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense....Where's is the A-class review process? We can't merge FAC into A-class review because there is no such process except in a select few projects.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's please focus this new issue on trying to improve science articles, rather than using it as another avenue for the perennial, "reform/merge GA/PR/A-class" debate. If you want to improve science articles, we should focus on working within the framework of the existing review processes. If you want to revise the review processes, that needs to be discussed elsewhere. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Geometry guy 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If we want to improve science articles, FA is as near to irrelevant as makes no difference, both for the small number of articles nominated and for the meagre quality gains achieved at FAC. Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you try to be constructive Physchim? All the comments I see you make seem to be to the effect of "FAC sucks and is unredeemable". (I could be mistaken, but that is my impression).Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But I am being constructive! I am drafting a separate, positive and constructive proposal about replacing FAC, which is receiving many useful comments, including several from yourself. I have made a proposal here to keep FAC but add a WikiProject phase. Of the two, I think replacing FAC is best, but it is healthy that various alternatives are discussed. The scope of this page is definitely to keep something resembling the current FAC process, and I modulate my comments in consequence. Just don't expect me to let some of the bigger contradictions and non sequiturs go unanswered. Physchim62 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this suggestion mean for all FACs or only science FACs? Are you saying that science FACs should go through a different process than FACs in other areas? Or, if the suggestion is a general one meant to develop a new process for all FACs, then should not the input be far wider than just input from those interested in topics in science?  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Action idea: List of tools we have and want
It seems to me that a good portion of the problem that wikipedia has is that a good portion of the tools it has are basically not easily discoverable. Perhaps we can start by making a list of all the tools and processes that will help either:
 * build an editing and reviewing community(ies),
 * Examples:
 * Usable lists of members of communities
 * (Place links here)
 * Project pages detailing what is being done and reviewed that is designed to be watched.
 * (Place links here)
 * (Place other community building tools here)
 * bots that can help with the above
 * (Place links here)


 * promote communication and reviews between disciplines,
 * Examples:
 * Requests for Comments
 * (Place links here)
 * Pages with requests for peer review (that can be watched)
 * (Place links here)
 * Article exchange program. (You review mine, I'll review yours)
 * (Place links here)
 * (Place other interdisciplinary communication tools here)
 * bots that can help with the above
 * (Place links here)


 * help editors and reviewers improve quality of article prior to formal reviews,
 * Examples:
 * Manual of Style(s)
 * (Place links here)
 * Check lists and cheat sheets
 * (Place links here)
 * Pages that explain formal review process
 * (Place links here)
 * bots that can help with the above
 * (Place links here)


 * help non-technical reviewers make technical judgements.
 * Examples:
 * Pages that help funnel technical reviewers to overall review committees
 * (Place links here)
 * Pages that build up overall review committees.
 * (Place links here)
 * bots that can help with the above
 * (Place links here)

The last two of these list of points will be particularly relevant here as they concern ways in which the FAC can help the technical projects and ways that technical projects can help the FAC. I propose therefore that we:
 * make a list of all tools available to help with our goals
 * brainstorm for useful tools that are not available
 * review the tools
 * which tools are most important?
 * can they be easily modified to be more useful?
 * can they be streamlined for ease of use?
 * can tedious parts be automated?
 * is there a watchlist page for that tool?


 * decide on action plan to update and fix tools
 * promote the tools and make them easily discoverable by everyone.

I would start the list myself, except that most of these tools are very difficult to find for a relatively new person like myself. Experienced people take them so much for granted they often spout out an acronym soup. TStein (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to be able to easily find tools. I love User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar, which I stumbled upon in the Gadgets section of my Preferences.  I'm sure there are other cool things out there, but they are hard to find. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)