Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2011/Editorials

Comments
Although readers might get confused by some of the advice, and some of the advice contradicts, I still think this is good to go as a column, as long as we go a little more in-depth on a few points in next month's column. I think there's value in showing our readers that there's lots of support for giving everyone a role in reviewing. It would be nice if we could say more, but the more we say, the less likely people are to read it, so I'm happy with what we've got. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot about Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates, which has a few more comments.  They overlap the comments we already have somewhat; should we insert them? - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just added the comments from WT:FAC, and IMO this is good to go. More next month. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the comments are ordered by length. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The best way to learn how to be a good reviewer is to WRITE an FA. (hint, hint.) FAC doesn't need more hoi polloi and democracy and yadda yadda, yuck yuck. The reason the articles (and process) are any good is pretty much in contravention to the idea of Wiki that throw enough wikignomes at something and good work will result. Sandy should just go tit for tat, FAC has LESS danger of it affecting the process than DYK! She just refuses to think strategically and just flails away firefighting...66.235.62.228 (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And Sandy is out to lunch on the idea that shorter reviews are more beneficial. A long review and a careful reading is way higher value and shows engagement with the work.  She just wants to go back to the RFA like voting of 5 years ago, when, guess what, the articles were more crap.  Just put in sections or subpages or whatever.  And divide the articles up amongst editors.  Her real whine is related to her looking at the page, not at the process of how content is dealt with in a review process.66.235.62.228 (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)