Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

; Archives
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Short FAs, 32 Short FAs cont., 33, 34 Context and notability, 35, 36 new FAC/FAR delegates, 37, 38, 39 Alt text, 40, 41 42, 43 44, 45

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Weise's law	Review it now
Battle of Saipan	Review it now
The Motherland Calls	Review it now

For a Table-of-Contents only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list

Template:FixBunching

1c

I'm working on Abraham Lincoln, and I'm worried about criteria 1c: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". I'm using lots of books by well respected historians, but I'm also using lots of other books. What kind of leeway do I have? I don't want to get bit at the FAC, and waste a bunch of effort. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a history specific reply, I am trying to work up this article you might like to read, Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History, or WP:MILMOS#Sources which acts as a B-class review of what minimum acceptable standards are for history articles (through transclusion). However, take what I say with a grain of salt, I am also apparently a controversial editor when it comes to RS demands, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1.

The first point to start is by attempting to find what the historiography is, for a recent example of this, check Talk:Soviet historiography#Myths and reality which identified a historian's contributions as irrelevant by search through journal book reviews of his monographs, and located (and tested) an assumption that another historian was an acceptable producer of historiography.

Ideally you are looking for what historians call "A review article". These come out about every 10 years or so on a topic, and cover the historiography of the entire field, making a judgement on what the essential recent literature is and what the major arguments are. These would be "high quality" sources per FA for me.

Lower quality sources would be non-relevant academic writings.

Lower still would be popular writings published as RS per wikipedia's guidelines.

Argumentative use of Primary Sources to prove assertions would rule out an article becoming FA. Use of primary sources to illustrate (as in graphics, diagrams, photos illustrate other articles) would be useful, and looked on favourably.

Use of lots of other books depends on how they're reviewed, if their assertions are fringe, or just factoid, etc. etc. etc. Your narrative and structure in the article ought to be driven by RS historians' consensus discovered through historiography articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher, I predict Lincoln will get several archives at FAC, so for clear expectations if it passes the first time up you should be ecstatic. There will just not be enough to make everyone happy. It is unrealistic to use every biography ever written about Lincoln, but you should, I think, be able to speak somewhat intelligently about why you used less of one biography for another. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an explanation for most books, and people I can ask, but I'd reallly like a place online where I can check how good sources are. It looks like The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature is not searchable by google books (not surprisingly). I don't think any of the libraries within 100 miles are going to be much help, either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unreasonable to me to use every available source on Lincoln: this isn't a dissertation, or a book. What seems reasonable is categorizing the types of views on Lincoln, (for example: Lincoln as emancipator, Lincoln as politician, Lincoln as Commander in Chief, etc.), historigraphic views, (such as: Progressive, Marxist, Neo-con, social historian, cultural historian, etc.),and/or audiences (how different groups of people might tend to view Lincoln) and using representative views/works. This leads to a structure that combines narrative (one darn thing after another) and historiography (this is how experts have interpreted one darn thing after another), and assessment (this is how historians have assessed one darn thing after another, and one interpretation after another). I faced a similar problem with Unification of Germany, and this is how I addressed it there. Make sense? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(oh, and yes, I agree with Fifelfoo, controversial editor re reliable sources or not -- and I suspect that you can do a lot of work on this via the state of the historiography summaries that appear in the "good" (i.e., peer reviewed) journals, such as American Historical Review, and the like. I can recommend one already, Scott Sandage's article on the Lincoln Memorial. Easy to find, but I don't remember what journal or book it came out in.) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History is an essay, not widely edited, and it's the first time I've encountered it. It's not guideline or policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I researched its origins a while ago when becoming frustrated with the poor quality of sourcing in relation to history articles. Its quite old, and for FA purposes somewhat superceeded as WP:MILMOS#SOURCES is included in the History project via B1 criteria Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Assessment and has done so since October 2007. Good work Milproject. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't using academic journals unnecessarily do the reader a disservice under WP:V? Books are widely available; many have free previews online. If the reader is met with a sea of citations to journal articles, unless he is a student with unmetered acces to JSTOR, he's going to be able to verify nothing. Neither will FA reviewers, btw ...--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Non-free and non-online references and the talk page in general at Verifiability seems to repeatedly go over this issue. If you've got a problem with WP:MILMOS as a long standing consensus take it up there. The WEIGHT lying in magisterial monographs argument is a superior one to this for preferencing survey scholarly monographs over specialist journal articles. And look, the argument is transformed into one of academic survey works versus academic specialist works; and I'm left asking why survey works in Edited Collections or Journal Articles should be avoided if the issue is WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I gather that you would be quite content if monographs were avoided entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may. Your point of view on 1c does not seem to be widely shared, is certainly not the consensus view, and I would suggest that you exercise caution in advising others, as you did to start this thread, because it does not reflect consensus and should not be stated unconditionally in that manner. At the least say "It is my view that ..." It's a very unfortunate way of putting things, and may discourage people from doing excellent work here. If you want your view to be consensus, then go and build that consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I'd also be grateful for clarification on 1c, and Fifelfoo's oppose of Nikita Khrushchev on the principal ground of lack of scholarly articles. It strikes me that authors of biographies and other works (while the bios of Khrushchev are 2003 and 1995, other books on him and his era used are 2009, 2008, 2006) are in a better position than us to judge and incorporate such material. I am also concerned about how much scholarly article material (obviously to avoid treading trodden ground, they go to increasingly fine points) are even relevant in a summary style article. There are obvious concerns where these materials are difficult and expensive for a non-university affiliated person to obtain. I will say that I am troubled that there seems to be a shift in expectations, as represented by Fifelfoo's comments in this and other article reviews I have just been reading and I am uncertain as to what the present practical community standard is in applying 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with everything that Wehwalt has said above, and I also think that clarification on these points is absolutely necessary, and not only at some discussion page but in the FA criteria, where everyone can find them: before going to FAC, or even before greatly developping an article. Wikipedia must beware that its guidelines become not ever more absurd and restrictive, else contributors who do all this for nothing will rapidly decrease in number. Only last spring, I experinced that a very respected user (many FAs) was clearly against inclusion of newer (1990s) academic material (books! not even articles) into an older history FA: only the most general biographies/overviews would be suitable for a WP article! So what is WP's policy, please? Buchraeumer (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "WP policy" isn't relevant here, as it simply asks for reliable sourcing. What's been happening at a few recent FACs is demands for particular sources to be used, which is neither a part of WP policy nor the FA criteria. Objections at FAC ought to be based on the content on the article and its conformance with the FA criteria, not on whether favourite sources are used or not. The criteria ask for reliable sources, not the most reliable sources, even if it were possible to establish which were the most reliable sources. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 1c requires "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". I don't think it's usually reasonable to demand that specific sources be used (unless that source is recognized as the authoritative one, or the topic is sufficiently narrow that that source is required to write a broad enough article), and I don't think it makes any sense to look at an article written with high quality book length biographies and make a blanket complaint about the lack of academic papers, but I also think nominators should be prepared to explain why particular sources were not used. It could be that they focus on too specific a subject for a summary style article or that they only duplicate what's in other sources (for the purposes of the article, at least), but I don't think "any old sources that clear WP:RS will do" is compliant with 1c. Steve Smith (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say so, I think that's arse about face. A valid objection, IMO, would be for instance to say that "source X claims Y, but that does not seem to be covered in this article", not that "you haven't used source X". --Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that "I don't think it's usually reasonable to demand that specific sources be used", so I think we actually agree on that point. But I think part of the issue is that reviewers aren't going to review the content of sources enough to say "source X claims Y", but we can review sources in enough depth to say, for example, "Your most recent reference is from 1978, and here are five major works on the subject published since then. Why have you not used any of them?" Steve Smith (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your general point, and I agree with it. I guess I have a couple of recent examples of what I regard as unreasonable demands for particular sources to be used in mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, getting down to cases, Khrushchev. The two major English language biographies of him were published in 1996 and 2003, with the 2003 one winning the National Book Award. Not being content with that, I used more recent books, including books about his foreign policy (2006), about the Cold War era in Soviet history (2008) and about his U.S. visit (2009), as well as an older book (1978) to cover bits of his agricultural policy not covered in other sources), his memoirs, and a book written by his son (2001) who is probably the leading expert on Khrushchev but whom I used cautiously for obvious reasons. These authors (I am away and have only the 1996 book with me) presumably used the scholarship in writing their books. There is no showing that recent journal articles would correct any errors in the article, or that there would be some great addition to the article based on one or more journal articles, it's just "you just haven't used them". If the article is comprehensive and accurate, and verifiable to good quality, accurate RS, then gee whiz, what does it matter? This is not a thesis. I should add that the Khrushchev article is so much better sourced than, say ~~Harvey Milk~~Jerry Voorhis (heavily relies on a biographer who was a friend of ~~Milk~~Voorhis in life) that there's just no comparison. I will say this, that this needs resolution. People need to know what the standards are and be able to act comfortably relying on those standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's no help to your query, but on the general point, do you think it would be unreasonable to demand that both recent bios were used, or just the more recent, or just one of the two? I think that at the least one should be used, in the case of such a recent figure - if it was Julius Caesar neither might be an indispensible source. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, dude? Harvey Milk? I just saw this. Surely you can see the differences between a scruffy pot-smoking hippie gay guy who spent 11 months as a city councilman turned into a counterculture American icon, and the premier of the Soviet Union who was in charge during the hottest part of the Cold War, banging his shoe at the UN? Nonetheless, I challenge you to find any sources I missed for Milk. What were the neural connections that made it seem like a good idea to try to trash one article while trying to prove a point with another? I've been reading this discussion trying to figure out what the real argument is since it seems to be going in multiple directions, and this comment just thrust it in another. But it does illustrate one facet: each article should be comprehensively researched according to the canon of literature written about the topic. Sometimes I write about events that were shameful and embarrassing, that involve people on the outer fringes of society that no one with any academic self-respect would have studied at the time. I do not think that means they are not worthy of FA status. As for Kruschev, which I have not read either in article or FAC, his would be similar to Lincoln's which I am watching. I would start with books as they tend to be more comprehensive, and I would quickly get a feel for which books are the most reliable and well-written. I would use articles when I lacked understanding about a concept, a book neglected to address something, or it needs specific detail. I would search for reviews of the books to give me a good idea about which of them are the most respected in academia. Regardless, I would be open to improving the article in any way possible. If that meant reading articles, I would do it. If articles would not assist and I can prove that they had been summarized in books that have already been cited, or the ones I use supplanted article comprehensiveness or quality, I would disagree that articles should be used in place of books. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I expressed myself very badly, I meant to illustrate the broad range of what can be used, sourcing-wise, to make a FA. I've redacted (spilled?) Milk and inserted another article where the lead editor did the same thing, although not as well as you. Oh, darn, now someone will email that guy and I'll catch all heck from him. I should add that I read Milk when it was going through the TFA process and it is an excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least two should be used. I'm currently juggling five bios in rewriting Neville Chamberlain, since one early bio (Feiling) is deemed seminal and another fairly early one is by far the most detailed, though it only covers him until 1929 (the second volume has never appeared). If you rely on one, you are putting yourself at serious risk of having the author's bias pass unchallenged (and perhaps unnoticed) into WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Fifelfoo's point about journal articles, as I noted above, his concern about the sources' origin does seem like a reasonable one, if it's based on accurate information. Of the eight books in the references not authored by the subject, four of them are by people with Russian sounding names; were any of those books originally written in Russian? Steve Smith (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no credit for translators on a quick glance at them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no major Russian sources that have been translated to English? I realize that reliable sources on political figures might be rarer in a country to which freedom of speech is a more recent introduction, but it's been nearly twenty years since the Communists fell; surely there have been serious Russian scholars of their history to undertake study of him. If there are, but they're available only in Russian, I guess that raises a question about 1c: do we require a survey of the most significant sources, or only the most significant English language sources? I'm largely neutral on that question, but the answer would affect my view of whether Krushchev clears 1c (and indeed whether a non-Russian-speaking editor even could write such an article). On the remainder of Fifelfoo's concerns, I agree with Ottava below. Steve Smith (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no bios of Khrushchev translated from the Russian, from google and amazon searches. Interesting, Taubman's book was translated into Russian and published there, and is cited by the Russian Wikipedia. That article is not well souced, but it doesn't mention any major Russian bios. I'm open to ideas as to how to determine the state of the Russian literature on Khrushchev, if any. I guess that we would have to assume that since the West is where the money is, any major work would show up if it had any chance of commercial success. I could look through biblios in my Khrushchev books, looking for Russian titles with "Khrushchev" in them, but then how do I assess their importance? Since all major books on Khrushchev use Russian sources (both archival and other) I'd also suggest that they would include any important scholarship in their analyses. Don't know how to answer further.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd also be grateful for clarification on 1c, and Fifelfoo's oppose of Nikita Khrushchev on the principal ground of lack of scholarly articles." - The article has works by Norton, which is a scholarly publisher. The article has multiple works by Penn State, which is a scholarly publisher. The article has a work by St Martin's, which is a scholarly publisher. The article has a work by North Carolina Press, which is a scholarly publisher. I see seven verified scholarly published works. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments by Wehwalt and Ottava Rima. High quality biographies by respected scholars are the best place to begin an article like this, in my view, because they make it easier to judge the appropriate weight for different material. The articles mentioned in the FAC by Fifelfoo I'm sure are useful sources, but constructing an article from such sources requires a great deal more independent synthesis and determination of weight by our editors (which is bad). Christopher Parham (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to figure this out. I'm still slowly working on Lincoln, and I've been using the most recent and respected books on the subject as much as possible. This was to avoid opposes based on the source requirements. Now am I hearing that peer reviewed journal articles are the best, and that's what I needed to be using? I did CS in school, so I've never done any sort of American history papers, so it wold be great if the criteria could give better guidance than "use the best sources" without explaining what those are. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The criteria can't be more specific, because "high-quality sources" means something different for each field. For example, video game articles can't require academic articles, but not all video games have been analyzed in that manner. In the case of Lincoln, I would imagine it is the same as it is for any major historical figure: there are a series of well-respected biographies and a set of crucial journal articles. When it comes to academic research, both books and articles are important. Generally, you will get a sense of what books and articles are important by looking at bibliographies in the relevant books and articles. When a journal article is cited in every respected biography, for example, you know it is important. I would also assume that with a figure such as Lincoln, there has been an assessment of the scholarship - somewhere, someone has written down what the most important works are. For example, I just read a biography of Thomas Jefferson that started by explaining the strengths and weaknesses of all of the major Jefferson biographies. That is the kind of thing that is very helpful to find and is easy to find for major figures such as Lincoln, but much harder to find for obscure personages. Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to add to what Awadewit said, many book-length biographies will have a bibliographic essay at the end assessing the importance and credibility of various sources, so if you can find a recent biography that has such a thing, you're off to a good start. Steve Smith (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But even what Awadewit said isn't always enough in, at least, some medical articles. Some authors are highly quoted because they turned out to be wrong; in those cases, editor discussion of subsequent, peer-reviewed sources can be used to eliminate earlier sources, even if they appear oft-cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I know about video game articles, and what's best for them. But, when one is doing a subject on which every type of reliable source is available, there's apparently a hierarchy. We should make a not of that hierarchy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but you have to realize that even within fields, that hierarchy is not absolute. I'm afraid that there are no hard-and-fast rules to apply here. You have to learn what are the most reputable sources for each topic you write about - it takes a lot of time and effort and there is no shortcut around it, I'm afraid. For example, I would anticipate it that would take several weeks just to establish what to read about Lincoln, much less read it! Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely: another medical example. The New England Journal of Medicine is highly regarded, yet printed blatantly incorrect information in a review of Tourette syndrome. The Tourette Syndrome Association Scientific and Medical Advisory Boards did not take this on, although there were Letters to the Editor rebutting the inaccuracy, because of a previous drama-fest that had played out in the journals. Typically, an NEJM review would be considered a high-quality medical source: not in this case, and I only know that because of years of involvement in the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each discipline, or non disciplinary field will have different criteria. 1c includes searching for, and making use of, scholarly journal articles which are relevant. This discussion is mainly focused on History. Unlike Physics, Maths, or Sociology, history works primarily through edited collections and monographs. Primarily. It also works through the publication of scholarly articles. A history topic which has not surveyed scholarly articles in its source use at all indicates that it is not appropriately researched. "Full Text In Books" is just as bad a bias as "Full Text On Net". The requirement is not to use specific journal articles, but to indicate that appropriate journals have been adequately reviewed for the scholarship. If this is onerous, then don't bring articles to FAC, or get 1c changed, to read "...except for history and biography of historically notable individuals." Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the thoughts, I can find little that suggests that your view of 1c corresponds with the community view, especially that expressed when 1c was amended earlier in the year. Certainly, the views of experienced FA writers and reviewers seem to differ considerably from yours. I'm not saying that what you suggest is not a good idea, I'd have to give a lot of thought to that one, but writers deserve to know the standard by which their work is to be judged, and if your view of 1c is to become the community view, then there would be a tremendous amount of work done so that writers in different disciplines are aware of standards to be applied to their articles, and we would have to set up some sort of process to determine doubtful cases. At the present time though, I think we have to take 1c as it is, not as you would have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually agree that a search of academic journal articles is probably advisable. But for tertiary survey articles of people who have been the subject of multiple book-length biographies, such articles generally operate on a level too specific to be useful. Certainly, based on the examples Fifelfoo provided, that appears to be the case with Krushchev. Steve Smith (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." Historians publish journal articles. Journal articles are relevant literature. A survey of the literature includes determining if journal articles are relevant. I have seen recent FACs where no, or few, relevant journal articles existed. The FAC sponsoring editor was able to rapidly respond on that point because they had conducted a thorough literature search. The Lincoln example above would include, for example, searching to determine if Review articles had been published on the historiography of Lincoln, and then using the relevant articles cited in such a review article. 30 seconds in Scholar with "Allen C. Guelzo The Not-So-Grand Review: Abraham Lincoln in the Journal of American History, Journal of American History, 96 2 2009" with the search string "Lincoln historiography "Review Article"" "Lincoln historiography" produced as its third hit "Douglas L. Wilson Prospects for "Lincoln 2.5", Journal of American History, 96 2 2009" reviewing in turn Matthew Pinsker, "Lincoln Theme 2.0," Journal of American History, 96 (Sept. 2009), 421. In Lincoln studies, at least, 2009 has been an important year for historiographical reviews, which means that WEIGHT is clearly determined by the scholars. Failure to search for these, and make reference to them, in relation to Lincoln, would mean a fail at 1c. In relation to Khruschev, Quenoy ZHURAVLEV Nakachi appear to be relevant content unlikely to be addressed in a monograph, Jones and Benn appear to be relevant relating to establishing appropriate WEIGHT. The simplest way to determine if journal scholarship needs to be included if you have magisterial scholarly monographs, is to check the monographs bibliography to see if specialist studies have been consulted in relation to the monograph. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire for unnecessary fights. I would say to you that regardless of the validity of the standards you seek to apply, your objections are stated in ways that do not necessarily convey what you are looking for. Your last response contains a very heavy dose of jargon. If you are saying that if what you are looking for is evidence that scholarly articles were consulted by the authors of the books in question that are cited as sources, well, gee whiz, just say so. I should add that I hardly think that "N. S. Khrushchev and the 1944 Soviet Family Law: Politics, Reproduction, and Language" is worth consulting as well beyond the scope of a summary style article. Come, let us reason together.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Combining Wehwalt's and Fifelfoo's feedback, it seems to me that the logical conclusion is that History articles need the equivalent of WP:MEDRS, where the sourcing standards for medical articles are explained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explained? For certain, but as it stands right now, there seems to be a very considerable difference of opinion as to what they are!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right ... well ... it took us months (if not years) to hammer out MEDRS (ask Colin). And then we sought wide approval and consensus. But today, editors know the expectations, and when an article comes to FAC that doesn't conform, we have a place to point them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST already has had it's style guide incorporated as part of the MOS. Here is our section on sourcing and citations: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Sourcing and citation -MBK₀₀₄ 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rambling RS essay going back to 2003 or early regarding historical sourcing. I inquired to see if anyone was interested in developing it a while ago. The silence was deafening. Working up 1c advice which is discipline specific for history and historical biography may be useful. To what extent was MEDRS solving problems at FAC, and what intensity of problem was it solving when the development process began? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start ? First, it took an enormous effort and commitment (largely from Colin) to get the job done. I do think it was years. The POV-pushers, of course, resisted, because it increased the standards. With MEDRS, we can plainly and easily object to poorly sourced medical articles, and we can point to it in peer review, disputes, etc. It reduces "pop culture" sourcing in medical articles. Before MEDRS, infamously unreliable sources that meet WP:RS were being used in medical articles, even when journal reviews didn't agree. It has made an enormous difference in the quality of medical articles on Wiki, and the ease with which we can now point to sourcing requirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated, Sandy. History is not medicine. If we were to have such a process, we would have to be careful that we aren't applying a presumption that a close analogue to MEDRS is to be created. Personally, I think we first need to be sure what the present standards are, and then work from there. To a certain extent, though, I think the community is speaking on what that is, judging by the above thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the choir :) When that wording was added to 1c, I knew it was going to end up in my lap, in a FAC disupte :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Colin. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still hoping we can defuse this. I believe the community is of the opinion that Khrushchev satisfies 1c, but I'm willing to work with Fifelfoo, if possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help to both of you, in terms of defusing tempers or lowering frustration, I did foresee this issue when the wording was added, and this is the first real test. The wording change was the subject of long and intense debates, so try to focus your arguments on what 1c actually says now; it was well and widely discussed. I could see then that it wasn't as cut and dried as, for example, medical articles, because of the years we spent establishing the sourcing requirements. Try not to beat each other up or bang your heads against walls :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as somebody who writes mostly about military weapons and technology, I can assure y'all that there often aren't any scholarly journals that are reasonably available because many libraries simply don't collect them. And sometimes there are only brief surveys available until somebody does a monograph on it and then people start giving you grief over single-sourcing. So the sort of standard desired by Fifelfoo may be practical for more ordinary types of history, but it certainly isn't applicable to all historical articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Sturmvogel 66: lets say, for example, that we're going to deal with an obscure incident in the Korean War, referenced in the Official South Korean history (available, exhaustive, and updated to be less... bad). We search Scholar. We get a Korean Friend to search Korean historical indexes. We get a university friend to search major humanities / military science indexes. We check the indexes of our PRC and DPRK sources... and there are a few obscure references. That would meet MILMOS and FAC because it would be a thorough use of sources on the topic. If there are three articles, and we've cited two, and the other is in Korean and we don't have access to a Korean reading editor, we've thoroughly exhausted the reliable sources. If the depth of scholarship is thin, the requirement is still the same at 1c, but we can cover the requirement much more quickly. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But both MilHist and Medicine are head and shoulders ahead of the rest of Wiki for having put in the years of effort to lay out the standards. I think all of us involved in the WP:MEDRS effort tore our hair out at some point, but would all agree that it was well worth the effort considering the upgrade that resulted in the quality of medical articles. We even have our own inline now!^{[unreliable medical source?]} This is not an easy problem to solve, but we have two examples before us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in the meantime? I'm going to bed, Sandy. If you elect a pope, send me a smoke signal. I guess it's back to Wikiproject: Real life girls gone wild.:)--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus rules. Keep arguments focused on what 1c actually says now, and in my case, be glad that History is Karanacs' area of editing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You took Khrushchev through Milhist. I declined it there. Its declineable there under Milhist A criteria. ~~It was not promoted at Milhist. "Closed as not promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)" Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikita Khrushchev.~~04:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) WP:MILMOS#SOURCES already exists, and is referenced through the History project as an acceptable standard for history for A, and thus as a precursor for FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, I should note that the ACR closure was mostly procedural because the FAC was initiated while the ACR was still ongoing and had not been open for 28 days. At MILHIST we discourage editors to put their articles up for multiple review process' at the same time, so when an ACR is opened an ongoing PR is closed, etc. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, amended the above comment to correctly characterise MILHIST procedures and avoid implying the closure meant anything other than the opening of the FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. As I noted in opening the FAC, my purpose in taking it to Milhist was merely to obtain feedback in light of a tremendous backlog at GAN, and I felt I had gotten all I was going to get. While I would have taken the A class if offered, that wasn't my purpose, as I indicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In the case that you specified that procedure works, but my point is that it doesn't really apply to a lot of technology or weaponry-type articles. Lemme discuss a concrete example, my Sd.Kfz. 10 article on a German half-track of WWII. Prior to the recent publication of a monograph by Thomas Jentz all that was concretely known about it came from a few paragraphs in a pictorial survey of all German half-tracks by Spielberger and entries in a couple of AFV encyclopedia type books. They sufficed for the basic stats, and maybe production numbers, but that's about it. Even the wartime intelligence reports that are online don't give any more information than the other books, so there's nothing to cite there. And there literally aren't any reliable journals that cover German half-tracks. About the only magazines that mention it at all are modeler-oriented, and I generally don't consider them RS, and they aren't indexed anywhere that I'm aware of. So if I were to submit it for FAR you'd bounce it for lacking any journal citations, which would be a condition that it could never meet since they simply don't exist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do you 2c for fn12 having fullcite information instead of fn1 for Jentz and/or the lack of a fullcite for the first use of new sources, or for only doing it for Jentz; Chamberlain and Doyle being out of style for multiple authors (see fn24 for the Last, First; Last2, First2; Lastfinal, Firstfinal you're using). I'd query why there's no Osprey on half-tracks of the third reich worth quoting. My preliminary google scholar turns up nothing worth citing so I wouldn't mention it. I'd also 1c question these three things: what kind of divisions were they used in, operational purpose, post-war uses. You sound like you'd have an adequate response, and I'd convert my decline to support. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that I have more work to do if I ever wanted to kick it up for a FAR, but you're not responding to my basic point. The scholarly apparatus that you're proposing to make a condition simply isn't available for certain types of articles. And even if it was, I think that I'd question the basic reasonableness of requiring such a thing even for more ordinary history articles. Most, but not all, of the journal articles that I've read in JMH, IHR, etc. were pretty specialized and generally covered only one topic. For an article that's supposed to be an indepth survey, I'm not sure it really makes sense to try and incorporate these sorts of things, provided that the primary source books are recent enough to take heed of that scholarship. That author can usually be presumed to have read, or at least be aware, of the recent scholarship and made use of it in his or her book, and so the editor of the article can be assumed to have gotten the journal article's information pre-digested, as it were, through the author of the book. If this becomes a requirement then I predict that the only things that will make it through FAR will be narrowly-focused articles requiring limited research, because the broad spectrum type of articles will so time-consuming to research that only the most dedicated editors were persevere through the process. And I think that we'll be the poorer for it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the literature simply doesn't exist, then of course it isn't required. Your example of the Sd.Kfz. 10 prior to recent scholarship is an excellent example where scholarship is limited and there are no Journal Articles or Chapters in Edited Collections other than those cited. If the literature does exist, then it is required to the extent of relevance. In the Khrushchev case (merely as an example), two of the located articles were Review Articles, ie, entire field surveys. These exist and are not specialised. Journal of American History basically put out an issue of Lincoln review articles in September 2009, and these would represent the best, most recent, survey scholarship in the field. Similarly, failure to search means that the non-specialised, ie, the relevant journal articles won't be located. This is the case in the specifically biographical article indicated. Also worrying is when Chapters in Edited Collections are missing. These are often survey works aimed at a scholarly public on topics not engaged at monograph length. The search is the issue. If items don't exist, their absence is not relevant to if something is FA quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Sandy points out, "consensus rules". Right now, the community has expressed a consensus, so far as I can see, as to what 1c means, and it seems (I hope) to be on course to developing a consensus on the merits of the Khrushchev article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're over-eagerly characterising ~~less than a day's~~ four days discussion, which doesn't extensively discuss existing criteria (existing consensuses) for historical articles as a consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) strikes at 13:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I see your campaign extends back over a month or more now. I was much struck by this thread concerning you at AN/I. I'm rather taken by this quote by SpikeToronto about you with respect to your views on sources in FA's: "My primary interest in this ANI is your interpretation — as stated in your edit summaries, on your user page, and here in your postings to this thread — regarding what sources are and are not acceptable. It appears to be a restatement, a rewriting, of the Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and customs regarding reliable sources." In that thread, I see a comment by Smallbones, whom I respect from working alonside him/her at TFA/R: "Fidelfoo has a tremendous problem with tendentious editing, trying to dominate the article by coming up with frivolous citation and RS rules." (he misspelled Fifelfoo's name, which both commented on, a bit of a commu-Freudean slip!)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no vote of course, I see the following:

Those supporting Fifelfoo's position: Fifelfoo

Those generally expressing the opposite opinion, either that Fifelfoo's interpretation of 1c is incorrect or that Khrushchev meets 1c, expressed in various ways, here or at the review page: Wehwalt, Ottava Rima, Buchraumer, Steve Smith, Malleus Fatuorum, Johnbod, Christopher Parham, Brianboulton.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, for example, discusses the demanding of using specific sources in general, and rejects it. This has not been my review opinion on Khrushchev, nor here. My opinion, which I have repeatedly indicated, is that a thorough review includes using all publication forms of scholarly literature if relevant, and not being monograph (ie: single authored book) specific. You are mischaracterising a consensus here; and, you seem to be invested because you're currently sponsoring an article in review. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a well covered subject such at Lincoln or Krushchev I see no problem with using mainly books rather than journal articles. Yes, journal articles should be used, but most recent biographies by historians will do the journal articles for you. We're not supposed to be "cutting edge" of research here, we're an encyclopedia, and incorporating the very newest theories isn't the most important part of our job here. On a History/Biography specific set of source guidelines, I don't think it'd ever happen. MilHist isn't the same as Medieval History isn't the same as Modern American History isn't the same as Biography, and there is no overarching active wikiproject to coordinate things. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though the recentness of both the books and the subject can affect this - elsewhere I contrasted Krushchev with Julius Caesar, about whom I imagine no really staggering new information that would affect an article of FA length has emerged in the last 40 years or more. Then you're down to shifting fashion in general interpretations of the period. For what it's worth, I would have expected assurance that the book on Mandell Creighton's marriage had been properly taken into account, given the lack of other major sources that are at all recent. Whether a publisher would ever be found for a straight full-length biography of such a figure now must be a question. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ealdgyth, too. When you are writing an article on a pretty broad subject, full-length scholarly books are usually fine on their own; the scholars who wrote these books have often already consulted the journal articles and can distill down the most important aspects and give those facts the proper coverage in terms of weight. Also, in many cases the author of the journal article has written or contributed to other full-length books on the topic and it makes sense to consider those larger works rather than the article. It is also often the case that journal articles tend to cover a specific aspect of a broader topic, and they are in many cases overly specific for a summary-style article. In my own writing, I am likely to consult journals when I am writing on smaller events and topics (such as for the historical letter [[To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World) and much less likely to consult them when I am working on very broad topics or larger events (like Battle of the Alamo). Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a broad topic like NK or any President/Prime Minister who lasted more than a few months, there will be so much in the books that separate papers aren't really all that necessary as they are more likely to go into great depth (eg 30 pages) on every rigged election, internal party purge, a single policy and so forth, but it is better if the the book treats the certain facet in a shallow or vacuous kind of way, which can be possible. Also sometimes an entire book chapter is a re-hash of a paper from somewhere, so it isn'e necessarily less detailed unless the paper was on some standalone type of topic which doesn't fit into the author's wider book YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the Khruschev disagreeement, but on the general topic I agree with Ealdgyth and with Karanacs. The best sources depends not only on the field (medicine vs. history vs. etc.) but also about the topic within the field. Even in medicine, where journal articles dominate scholarship, there are exceptions: for the Cancer article, for example, medical journals rarely publish reviews of cancer in general, so books are a better bet. As for Julius Caesar: as I understand it we've learnt quite a bit about the topic from archaeological digs in the past 40 years, so I wouldn't advocate heavy dependence on 40-year-old books, but there is definitely no shortage of recent high-quality books on Caesar! Eubulides (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? They have confirmed Alesia is indeed where everybody always thought it was, & confirmed & fleshed out details of Caesar's own account of the siege & no doubt similar stuff elsewhere, but these are not things that really affect an article of FAC length. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fourth lev headers

SandyG...I like the fourth level headers we've used on some of the complicated reviews, especially this present one on the Inner German border. It makes navigating the reviews much easier, and responding to comments much more precise. Sometimes once we click on the "edit" button, it's hard to find the proper comment to respond to, in the maze of comments, crossouts, responses, more responses, and such. I realize that there will be pros and cons, but sometimes these reviews are incredibly long and involved. If each "reviewer" had a section, it would make our lives, and the lives of the editors, easier. What are the negatives for this? I'm sure there are some! :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FAC instructions say to avoid headers because of some past bad experiences. The first problem, in the past, was that it convoluted the entire FAC page, but this has now been solved with the use of a TOC setting, so that the subdivisions don't show on the FAC page-- only in each review. So this is no longer a problem. The bigger problem-- and one we really need to avoid-- was that, in the past, there were many circumstances of headings being used in ways that would bias the review or turn it into a battleground: breaks strategically located to highlight or ignore certain points; breaks that conveyed one reviewer's bias; breaks that were inflammatory or inaccurate; etc. And the problem there is that, once we start allowing sub-headers everywhere, they take over even the shorter reviews, and before long, we have less experienced reviewers using them inappropriately. So, on long and complex reviews, where headers are used appropriately without bias and without artificial breaks intended to convey a bias, I let them stand, but I'm not in favor of seeing them take over in general. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone wonder, as I do, if there will ever be an academic studying section-header bias in Wikipedia? :) Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note:reinserting Awadewit post (not here when Slim posted) that I accidentally removed. My apologies to everyone, espeically Awadewit!!!!! Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone wonder, as I do, if there will ever be an academic studying section-header bias in Wikipedia? :) Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the headers too; I found my last FAC page difficult to handle without them. If we stick to using headers with the names of the reviewers, that should get round the problem of possible bias. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they were also helpful on SV's recent FAC, but I hope if they take hold, we don't eventually see them being increasingly used, even in shorter FACs, and then veering into biased headings, the problem we had before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if we stick to using our names, and not our beef, then that should help. And we can police it also, so that if someone abuses it, it will be possible to deal with it. Using sections, though, should not take the place of reading other reviews of the article, which might be a temptation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I thought they were called headings? I understand that header is more appropriate for tables, succession boxes etc. Waltham, The Duke of 01:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of MOS complaints

I present this example for discussion. These issues are easily fixed, and the nominator, DaBomb87 and I got to them in less than an hour,[1] but I hope the frequent MoS complaints are not discouraging nominators from picking up these sorts of issues. When I see them early in a FAC, I tend to put them on article talk, rather than clutter the FAC with these minor issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also might keep a better eye on WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and WP:DATEOTHER. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of 1a, prose

WT:FA?#In the spirit of these things being descriptive.... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers wanted...

...no application! No forms in triplicate! No background check! Wonderful job with rewards beyond imagination! Help enlighten the entire world! :) Awadewit (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which topic area and what criteria...? :) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAC urgents list for articles requiring reviews of all kinds. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brunel is intimidatingly History of Science for me. I got severely bitten on H56. And I've already said my bit on Kennan :) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a few more have turned up to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Pretty obvious, except for the numbers.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to reviewing at least one or two to offset my new nom... unfortunately the cops cut my house's cable (don't ask) and so I've got spotty access right now. Reviews are coming, I swear! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, it's not necessary to do a comprehensive review of a FAC (unless you plan to Support); any feedback is helpful, so that we're not archiving FACs with no feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally been grateful for (most ;-) reviews given to the FA candidates I have been involved with, and have appreciated the time, energy and knowledge people put into them. But I have rarely done any reviews myself; this is in part, because I feel a bit intimidated by the scope of the task, the time it would take, and the responsibility it entails, both to the project and to the editor(s) involved. Sandy's comment above reminds me of a suggestion I have been meaning to make for a while, which I think might help me, (and other editors?) contribute to this process. Would it be possible make a list of some of the specific aspects that need to be checked for each article? Manageable chunks which somebody could do? The list might include: images, alttext, citations, external links, prose, etc etc. Perhaps a sub-page could be made with specific guidelines for each check/evaluation and how it can be done, maybe linked from each FAC? FAC an important but somewhat delicate area, and I feel that it behooves the project to think about ways to build up the skills and confidence of editors to contribute. Perhaps others have different suggestions? --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches cover what you have in mind? Should we do an updated Dispatch? Should we link it to the instructions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, no transcript? :-P Waltham, The Duke of 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think too high a proportion of reviews just look at articles from one angle (not to criticize the very necessary work of "specialized" reviewers, but the lack of others), & what is often lacking is probing of the overall article, and of the content. Of course the second of these tends to need knowledge of the subject area, but the first does not. This seems to be getting worse, or am I just indulging in Wiki-nostalgia? Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can afford to complain about any reviews we are getting at this point, especially since we are closing noms every week without enough reviews to make a decision about promotion. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) yes, Sandy, I think it's a start, and yes, it could be usefully linked from the page, and I think it is already. But I am thinking of something a bit more detailed, with specifics of what needs to be done and how to do them. And yes, I can also see Johnbod's point, too, though the point of my suggestion is to try to give people a chance to get their feet wait in an easy, manageable way, before they launch into other aspects. Another suggestion that I have wondered about is whether making some sort of "form" based on the FA criteria, might help people structure more general comments and thoughts, and used if editors wish. Something like, "Is it comprehensive?" "Is it well-written?". That doesn't necessarily deal with the problem of people with content knowledge being involved. Maybe part of submitting an article to FAC should involve posting a notice at the relevant wikiprojects to recruit this kind of input? These are just ideas, but I am conscious of the lack of reviewers, and the need to help people join in and feel useful. --Slp1 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if someone could take on a new Dispatch, linking to the old one and the Podcast. Getting Tony1 involved is key :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to balance writing time with reviewing time, across FAC/FAR/GAN/GAR/PR, and some reviewers have the admin sloughs of despond to deal with as well. I don't have a solution, just wondering if we're expecting too much. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC backlog and declaration disclosures

We might examine whether WikiCup is contributing to unprepared noms at FAC; I'm not saying it is, I haven't had time to check, but it could be a factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very wise comment, SandyGeorgia. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It suddenly occurred to me that there may be a reason for the backlog and overload at FAC :) Perhaps someone else will delve into this issue. Somewhere in the FAC archives, I thought we had a long discussion about the need to disclose contest entries: I don't believe that's happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reasoning behind that? Geraldk (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring disclosure of contest entries? Geraldk (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is an issue for very recent entries. The contest closes on October 31st & there are only 4 people left in now. Wikipedia:WikiCup - Durova, Ottava Rima, Sasata & The Leftorium. They have so far counted 12 FAs between them - 7 from OR. The gamesplay this year has been mostly GA, DYK & Durova's Featured Pictures. She currently leads with no FA points at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, I have declared myself the true winner. Go me. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moni, you always win, don't you? :p I don't think it's a contributing factor, there haven't been more driveby noms than usual this year. ceranthor 23:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandy, I believe that WikiCup entries were generally declared early on; most of the result is that as mentioned above only a few are still in the running, and they are basically featured content regulars anyhow. Let's not blame the contest; it's lazy and/or overworked people like us to blame. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its reasonable to blame some contributors who've brought works severely below expectations in one or more criteria; who haven't sought peak pre-FA review (either something like Military History's A class, or GA + peering) or where projects lack internal review facilities. On the other hand, working an article that is in most respects of FA quality, but needs community support to get it there is very rewarding, but also very exhausting. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the current system of not promoting FACs that don't get enough reviews and not permitting their nominators to immediately resubmit might not actually be the best system. In other words, I am wondering if that system might not be better than requesting reviewers to go the extra mile to help out. The lack of reviews is a reflection of the lack of interest among reviewers. The reasons for the latter can be many, but if, in part, they indicate the lack of quality in the article, then the system is working. Similarly, if the lack of reviews indicates nominator fatigue, then too the system is working. The instances to watch out for would be quality FACs on topics that are not of interest to the reviewers. These are the only ones that might require nudging from FAC directors. I trust, though, that the reviewing system is mature enough that such articles don't fall through the cracks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about requiring a review before each nomination to keep things more even. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember suggesting that once. The quite reasonable reply I got was that it's not so much the quantity of reviews but the quality that matters. Writing and reviewing are different enough that not everyone who can bring an article to FAC would make a good reviewer (just the same as how not every good reviewer would make a good article-writer). There's a lot of overlap, for sure, but having it as a requirement could still lead to substandard reviews clogging up FAC pages, making the delegates' job that little bit harder. Steve ^T • C 15:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's "The instances to watch out for would be quality FACs on topics that are not of interest to the reviewers" reminds me of occasional discussions at WT:GAN, where some subjects have longer lacklogs than other. I suggest that the solution at both GAN and FAC is that editors interest in these subjects need to do more work on reviewing. There would still be backlogs in subjects where there actually few editors, which would leave FAC a shortage of subject expertise in these areas. But at least FA that would reduce the number of backlogged topics in which the FA director and delegates would need to look for help. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Replies to PF and Philcha, The ultimate laissez faire solution would support neither approach. (Not saying if I like the free market here, but I am wondering about it.) Asking the reviewers to submit one review before submitting will still not ensure that the reviews are evenly distributed among the FACs. Similarly, to Philcha's suggestion, one might say that in a voluntary enterprise one doesn't need expert reviewers. If an article is too specialized for reviewers, then the nominators have not done a good job of making it accessible, and it most certainly will be too specialized for Wikipedia's target audience (assuming that the reviewers are a fair sample of it). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if that would solve the problem-- just a matter of the numbers. While I haven't done an in-depth analysis, my hunch is that it takes at least twelve reviews to get an article promoted, so asking each nominator to do one review might not be enough to address the problem. I will say that I'm concerned about repeat nominators who almost never review, and encourage others reviewers to lean on those people to pitch in, to the extent that they focus on editors with good reviewing skills :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can have a nominations-reviews index, NRI, for each nominator (like the body-mass index, BMI), and if, mathematically speaking,

NRI>1/12

, then NO DICE. (Mine, btw, for 2009, is 1/29.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a proposal at wikicup to offer points for reviews, but it was rejected out of concern that it would lead to drive-by reviews rather than the in-depth work that's needed. But at the very least, I think FAC regulars should feel free to regularly drop a note on the wikicup talk page during next year's competition reminding participants that all wikicup participants are better served if they offer quality reviews to each others' articles. The same applies to the other processes as well. Geraldk (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I do agree that in many cases a lack of reviews may mean a lack of quality; this can be especially true if there are comments but no declarations. Sometimes, it may mean that there are too many articles on a particular topic nominated in a short time frame and reviewer attention span has wandered. Sometimes it implies nominator fatigue (I'm tickled that my terminology has been picked up ;)), and sometimes I suspect reviewers had no idea what the article was about from the title and nomination blurb and so didn't take a closer look.

I think nominators can also be reminded that it is okay to try to find reviewers. As long as the nominator adheres to certain criteria (neutral messages to neutral parties), then this is often a good way to get more eyes on an article. Beyond posting at wikiprojects (which doesn't always help), I've occasionally approached some FAC reviewers who have experience in whatever general topic I am presenting and politely requested that they look at the article. I've also left notes on my own talk page that I have an article at FAC and I would appreciate any feedback. It is also okay to infrequently post here to attract more eyes to the article (best if the article is on a second nomination or later and still not getting feedback). I've noticed several reviewers here who graciously answer these requests. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fowler&fowler's "If an article is too specialized for reviewers, then the nominators have not done a good job of making it accessible" is difficult in a few subjects - mathematics and much of physics would baffle me, and I suspect chemistry would too; and perhaps advanced topics in music. And I'd be scared to review a medical article without a relevant expert on hand - an apparently innocent copyedit might lead to a lawsuit. --Philcha (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replies to Karanacs and Philcha) I agree with pretty much everything Karanacs has said. And I agree with Philcha's last comment as well; I was going to add a PS to my post with a caveat for the hard sciences, but got called away. And, yes, music, medicine, linguistics, ... would belong as well. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: in those cases, and where all else is going well in the FAC, I follow the example set by Marskell at FAR, and go out and ping content experts who have proven effective at FAC and ask them to weigh in. I try not to close otherwise worthy FACs just because content experts haven't weighed in, and to avoid promoting them until they have. Also, because I edit medical articles, and was a math undergrad who switched from physics, those articles don't intimidate me, and if I find them inaccessible, it raises my eyebrows :) Fortunately, Karanacs' content area is different than mine, Tony1's background is in music, etc.-- so hopefully we have these bases pretty well covered, but if reviewers see issues, I hope they'll raise them here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as a former grant and proposal editor (academic side), explanations that are not intelligible to the smart undergraduate major caused me to raise my eyebrows. If a prof told me his or her project was too complex for me to understand, I would tell him to go away and come back when he has figured out how to explain it. My penny's worth on expert-written articles. ;) For accessibility, ency. articles should be the access point, not the turning away point. Consequently, I'm always looking for a section on context or background, to place a piece of literature, music, art, movie, whatever, into some sense of time and place. When I decide if I will review an article, I look for ones that I'm interested in (topic wise) or by people with whom I have a history, even if I'm not interested in the topic. If someone with whom I have a bad experience is nominating, then I still don't review, even if I'm interested. It's too much hassle. As for the rest of this conversation, it has been very interesting, but I'm still not sure what we mean by "declaration disclosures"...Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get back to the declaration disclosures post, but would like to see more community feedback first. On your accessibility thoughts, I agree (and will hold my comments on some of the older math/physics FAs that appeared at FAR :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and a declaration disclosure is....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm nominating as a part of a contest. The passing of this nomination will get me points in that contest. Others in the contest may support or oppose based on my place in the contest as opposed to the quality of the article." --Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosing any sort of prior involvement in the article or contributing factors. For example, when WP:FAT was active, those FACs garnered a very high number of Supports, but many of the editors supporting had some level of involvement, so I generally made sure that there was substantial, independent review from non-FAT members before promoting. FAT was easy to keep up with because it involved many experienced FA writers; these other contests are more difficult to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also appropriate to mention when a reviewer has participated in a previous review process for that article - GA, PR, A-class reviewer. Some nominators specifically point this out, most reviewers tend to disclose that level of involvement. Karanacs (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or for example, "I did some copyediting on this article when it was at peer review" or "I'm a member of the Hurricane Project". Any information that helps us assure independent review. As a more general response, both Karanacs and I work hard to know what's up in the community and assure independent feedback on FACs. That means knowing who is in what WikiProject, who's feuding with whom, who's friendly with whom, who is a content expert in a given area, and all sorts of other things-- not all pleasant :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

got it now. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my only question is what purpose such a disclaimer would serve? With a reviewer who may have a coi, a disclaimer makes sense, but my concern (and, full disclosure, I'm a potential participant in next year's cup) is that it might dissuade reviewers from taking a look at the nom. That is, if the assumption is that wikicup-related noms are more likely to be inferior work. Which, btw, I don't think is a given - Ottava Rima's last few have been pretty impressive. Geraldk (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is to assure articles receive independent, unbiased review, unfettered by external issues, such as mentioned above in the examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, article assessment, such as GA, where oversight has been significantly less, witnessed several contest participants passing GAs for points where the articles were clearly not of GA quality. It was not the WikiCup and the number of GAs reviewed/passed were the factor that increased points for participants. While the mechanisms of FA make that a bit more difficult, a statement of disclosure nonetheless alerts Karanacs and SandyGeorgia to the idea that other issues may come into play. Any FAC may be politically gamed because a reviewer dislikes a nominator or dislikes someone who opposes/supports, but contests put time pressures and other stresses on an FAC. I see no problem in disclosing that the nominator is participating in a contest where the outcome of the FAC will influence his/her standing. When the Wikicup was established, I personally tried to persuade the participants to make sure their articles were more than ready for the FAC process instead of nominating an article prematurely to get feedback and comments to know what to focus on to attain a promotion. For some reason, points compromise editors' judgment about quality. --Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those explanations make sense. I'm all for it then, may recommend it over at FLC too if you all approve it here. Geraldk (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) (Reply to Moni3) The mad rush at GAN, in these closing days of Wiki Cup, can certainly impact FAC submissions. Not right now, but down the road. I see cookie-cutter articles written in uncertain syntax and lacking overall coherence being submitted frenetically. The chances are good that these same articles, with minimal refurbishing, will appear here soon. So, a declaration that the article's GA version was submitted for Wikicup (and when), would be good. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles I have nominated for FAC during the WikiCup were new articles nor where they anything beyond what was created with multiple people and then sat for a while "fermenting" in the Wikiverse until they were decided as suitable and then prepped. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so Fowler is proposing that Wikicup declarations should be in place even after WikiCup closes? (Ottava, no one is pointing any particular fingers as far as I can tell :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just wanted to point out my theory about nomination and the rest. I like to let articles sit and experience random cleanings (all of those AWB wanderers with their notable mistake checkers and random IPs who, on the rare moment, actually fix things). Right now, I have about 300 articles I've worked on. 30 of them could be put through GAN that aren't listed and about 10 could be put through FAC. Of course, a little work and clean up first to do final tweaking, but I always tend to keep a large reserve of such articles and put forth things depending on my mood and feeling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to SG)"Ah, so Fowler is proposing that Wikicup declarations should be in place even after WikiCup closes?" Yes. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would that be necessary out of season? Anything nominated outside of the Cup doesn't count towards it anyway. The FAC i nominated was nominated three or so days ago, and I was eliminated on September 30, I don't think its completely necessary out of season.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 04:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this either. Declarations should be made for any article in which the nominator is participating in a process that may attract editors interested in the outcome of the process, not the FA promotion. If there is no process, no contest, then what would they be declaring? The only instance that I can think of is that I declared during the nomination for Museum of Bad Art that it was for the main page on April 1. While I would not and did not benefit from that, I felt it pertinent to say as announcing an anniversary or a proposed date for an FA is premature and rushes reviews. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, didn't see this.) If an article was submitted for Wikicup in May, then I would treat it much like other article; however, if it was submitted in October (especially the last week), then I would consider it to be hurriedly created. If it was moreover not reworked much after the Wikicup submission, chances are good that I will encounter more than the usual challenges of reviewing. A declaration will give me a heads up. If the FAC page wants more conscientious reviewers, then it is its duty to facilitate their work. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Besides, the requirement of a declaration might dissuade editors from turning in articles here prematurely. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it also might turn away nominations as well. I could understand from January to October, but I would oppose implementing it from October 30 - December 31, as the Cup is not active and its back to normal nominating.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation styles

Recently, specific citation style requests are appearing at FAC: neither WP:WIAFA nor WP:CITE require or prescribe a specific citation style, so I hope reviewers and nominators alike will understand 2(c) of WIAFA:

(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (^[1]) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

Citation templates are not required, nor is a specific style of bibliography or separate notes and bibliography section, other than what is stated in the two pages above. Further, CITE is a guideline that states that established citation style should not be changed without consensus. It's not necessary for nominators to jump through hoops to write citations in a style preferred by an individual reviewer: it is necessary for the citation style to be consistent and for all relevant information to be provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Sandy says is true. But it sure would help things if Wikipedia could kindly agree on any one style. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And since they haven't and probably won't, some of us format citations manually to avoid the problem of the constantly changing citation styles :) Also, noting that Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard appendices and footers does not call for a separate Bibliography section, although it is sometimes used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they still should agree. I have been waiting since I joined this place. Believe it. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the minute they try to dictate one style, I suspect they will lose a ton of good editors who hate that particular style and will just stop editing rather than having to dela with trying to use it. Even the academic world can't agree on single citation style, it varies by topic, mood, whatever. No reason Wikipedia should have one forced citation style either, so long as they are consistent and valid per CITE. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply but it won't do. In a shared environment like this, an agreement makes sense. People do what is right if right is apparent. Assume good faith. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right is not apparent, nor does it have anything to do with "what is right". There is no one citation style that is "right". I don't see anything bad faith in my remarks. I'm speaking from actual discussions, knowledge, and my own feelings. I will not work on articles that have an established citation style that is not the one I prefer, and I would walk away if it was ever made that only Harvard, for example, was the "allowed" style. Rather than trying to enforce one valid style over another, I think its better to actually focus on just getting citations period. Lack of them, not lack of a single style format, is a far bigger issue across Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

OK, you win. But what did you win? -SusanLesch (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the Ottava style of referencing and citing. I can't handle any other. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some fields have demanded citation styles for good reasons, for example, History. However, an analysis of the reasons why historians are pedants, reveals that they are desperately interested in date of original publication or creation, and provenance data (producing authority, location, etc.). This could be satisfied in any number of ways, including, in a wiki with such small articles, inline citations with links, eg ([[#Smith2009|Smith 2009]], 44)... Bibliography [full citation of smith with anchor]. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bosworth Field

Recently, it was announced in the news about a new location for this mediaeval battle in England. The findings were derived from field surveys conducted by a respectable historical society; however, they have not released a report, and no independent scholars/historians have vetted it yet. There is a drive to include the discovery in the FA article, Battle of Bosworth Field. While I support the mention of the discovery, I am concerned at the manner in which it is presented in (violations of several FA criterion). As I was heavily involved in pushing this article for FA, my judgement could be impaired in certain areas here. I appreciate it if FA reviewers would review the changes, with regards to the information presented at Talk:Battle of Bosworth Field#Site moves again (my "beef" is with this insert), and weigh in accordingly. Comments and suggestions on how to integrate facts of the announcement in an FA manner are more than welcomed at this stage. Jappalang (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can we temporarily delink [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1] for a day or two as I work on some things? I originally meant to have it all fixed up on Sunday but on Wiki distractions are making it impossible for me to put together the formatting changes and post up a few paragraphs that are needed as fixes of two problems. I don't mean to close the FAC, but it would be nice to catch up first before it receives more responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea. You are welcome to withdraw the FAC and bring it back when you are ready, or the comments can pile up until you can work on them. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would only take 12 hours, but if you want to go through having all of the archive stuff around it then, well, I guess that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just leave a note at the bottom of the FAC saying that you'll be working heavily on the article for a couple of days, and asking reviewers to save their time by waiting until then? Bencherlite ^Talk 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at the top. I should probably expand on it. It wont take much, I just need some time to be able to devote to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyZ/peerreviewer script needs adoption

This script often used in GA/FA reviews needs adoption by an active user or a WikiProject. Please see my comments here for a centralized discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New dashes tool

I've created a new tool for fixing common hyphens/dashes/minus signs mistakes. It does a better job than the other tools I'm aware of, rarely missing needed changes or making incorrect changes (though its changes should still be reviewed). —GregU (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good, (although I have yet to test it). Does it account for the need to put spaces around the dashes in full dates (and will the user of the chance to do it manually if the script doesn't?)? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it will fix most spacing problems with date ranges. It will leave you showing its changes, and you can accept them, reject, undo some, make more changes, etc. You can report suggestions on its talk page. One thing it doesn't do (yet) is fix spaced em dashes, for the reason given on its talk page. They are rarer and not hard to manually search for. —GregU (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could you write some instructions on how to use it (not just on how to clear the cache). ??? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started some documentation on the talk page. There is just one control which you hit and then review. —GregU (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Where should this control be appearing after importing the script? I can't see it—yes, I have cleared my cache. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strike that, I've just found it. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna tell everyone else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to work in Beta, though--at least, I couldn't find it. With Beta disabled, it did work (and it caught some mistakes at Lundomys--thanks!). Ucucha 16:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the control is in the drop down list. AND it works in beta. You have to add it to the vector.js scripts. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works fine for me, and I'm using the beta version of vector. Handy tool Greg. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auntieruth55: Stupid me, should have thought of that. Ucucha 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hee heee (chuckling) and I'm such a newbie, too. But I had to get Greg to tell me exactly what to do. I've loaded some other tool, not sure what it is or when to use it, but it was clear in those instructions that vector (for Beta) and monobook were not the same, so I learned then. Where do I find other tools like this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole bunch more at WP:JS. Ucucha 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, there you are. I knew I'd seen your name recently! Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Great little program. thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews needed

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Historian/archive1~~

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nikita Khrushchev/archive1~~

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Crossroads/archive1~~

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive1~~

Thanks for your help! Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the reviewer doing Khrushchev please read GrahamColm's and my comments about whether certain images taken in Russia can be inserted into the article (they are not there at present) at the FAC? Just look for the image, it is in among the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I haven't yet caught up on that, but Elcobbola (talk · contribs) is very good with Russian images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)/archive1~~; I'm unsure if this is cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC deliberations

Since this article was promoted long ago in a subsequent FAC (hence it's now OK to discuss it), and because I've been pondering lately issues surrounding some arb statements in several ArbCom cases, I raise this old example for discussion here. Reference my closing rationale for this FAC: on rare occasions, when consensus isn't clear or the FAC is combative, I include a closing rationale on talk. As FAC delegate, it is frustrating to see invalid opposes lodged, particularly when many of those opposers overlooked more substantial issues in the article at the time, lodging instead a quick "1e, unstable" oppose. But if the delegates intervene in the FAC, by mentioning that the opposes aren't based on WP:WIAFA, to what extent would that have prejudiced the FAC outcome? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when someone who does a lot of reviews and whose opinions people respect say "support" or "oppose" do they influence the support or opposition of others? I'd say that is more likely that if you intervene and say, support or opposition based is not based on wiafa is simply keeping us on task. Reminding us not to get wrapped up in something that not related to the criteria. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think the opposers (of which I was one), had a different definition of "unstable" than the supporters. I see this as an example of an FAC which helped to define what "stable" means. What you are suggesting is that the delegates should have intervened and defined "stable" - shouldn't that have been left up to the FAC community? Awadewit (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1e was discussed here at WT:FAC but not on the individual FAC page, so some reviewers might not have seen it. The question relates more to whether intervening directly in a FAC would prejudice the outcome or derail the FAC (I'm raising this because of some recent arb comments that appeared prematurely prejudicial). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could link us to the arb comments, so we all understand the context for you asking the question? Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any benefit in going down that path; I think the context for my question is clear enough. How much should delegates intervene in a FAC, and to what extent might that prejudice or derail the FAC, when we see invalid opposes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the context is important, I'm confused as to why you mentioned it in the first place - clearly you did think it was important. I dislike this attitude on Wikipedia of only people "in the know" who read AN/I and RFAR every day really understanding what conversations are about. Awadewit (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But sometimes, here as elsewhere, that is pretty much the case. Personally I think about the current level to slightly more intervention is about right. But remember to keep your mystique, Sandy & Karanacs :) Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you had my talk page watchlisted, Awadewit; there are no secrets, but we don't need to crosspollinate discussions with unrelated matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OT: Shockingly, I don't read it every day! More like once every few weeks. I know, I know. Heresy.) Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well :) The only intent here was to get feedback on how delegates might do our "job" better, avoiding some pitfalls I've recently observed on arb cases. I didn't intend to delve into unrelated issues at ArbCom. Carry on :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional reviewer who has the impertinence to review others FA work without having created any myself; I would hope that if the FAC delegates found some of my whitterings unhelpful they would Email me or put an appropriate note on my talkpage. If that didn't work then wjem consensus might not be obvious to some participants, a closing rationale that mentioned the sort of arguments that were ignored would in my view be in order. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on feedback from Antieruth55, Johnbod and WSC, it seems that it's OK for us to cautiously weigh in a bit more often on FACs ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I favor that. In helping all participants--reviewers, nominators, other contributors--focus on relevant and substantial, rather than irrelevant or relatively inconsequential, concerns, that would benefit the process. DocKino (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Let's say in a hypothetical FAC, there is a dispute about whether an oppose is actionable. After the discussion, the FAC delegate might want to weigh in, simply to prevent everyone from wasting their time in waiting for promotion or not. It seems worthwhile. Seems worthwhile.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we're getting distracted by an unactionable oppose or support, then definitely weigh in, by reminding us to stick to the point (or however you want to phrase it...you are very tactful). In a recent review (a project review), we got side tracked on the number of footnotes, where they were placed, and what they looked like. In that particular review process, neither citation style nor the number of citations is an actionable oppose, so we all had to be reminded of this. Fortunately, a couple of other reviewers pointed it out, and a big wig was not required to step into the fray. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When possible, it's always preferable for other reviewers to point things out, so Karanacs and I can stay out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the good thing about their being two of us is that if we do cross the line into being too involved, the other can handle the close. We may need other reviewers to help us realize if we get to that line, so it can be so hard to see (especially with Sandy and I both having atrocious eyesight). Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link from main FAC page to individual FAC

(This seems like the kind of thing that's obvious enough to have been brought up before...so if it has, feel free to just direct me to the prior discussion.)

Would it be desirable to modify Wikipedia:Featured article preload so that when a new FAC is started it <includeonly>s a link to itself, to make it easier to go from the main FAC page to the individual article's entry. This would be similar to what is done at AfD, with a "(View AfD)" link below each subheader. Currently, as far as I can tell, WP:FAC has no direct links to the individual pages. I think it could be accomplished rather easily with something along the lines of

<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View FAC]]</includeonly>

I understand this would increase the number of links on WP:FAC and maybe increase load times (although I don't know if that increase would be large or negligible), but I think it would be useful. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The technical question you raise is beyond me, but I sure wouldn't want to see load time on the page slow down. When we get a Catholic Church FAC going, it's already bad enough! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about how the load times work, either; I'll ask around and see if any tech-y people know more about how big an effect this would have. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a no-brainer proposal. Currently if I have to go from WP:FAC to a particular article's FAC page, the route I have to take is WT:FAC -> Article page -> Article talk page -> Article FAC page, which is pretty silly (is there a obvious shorter route ?). The addition should add only 100-200 bytes to each FAC, which is negligible additional load, comparable to adding one additional user-signature per FAC! Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "shorter route" is the edit link on WP:FAC. After that hit "project page" if you really want the article FAC page only. Gimmetrow 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do that sometime; didn't list it above because I thought my description was getting convoluted anyways. :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I use the edit link, too...but that's still one extra click that I don't see any reason to require.

FWIW, I've only gotten a couple responses at WP:VP/T#How much do links affect load times?, but they seem to think the effect on load time will probably be negligible. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAC routinely runs into include size limits, and I think that's the concern here. The text you want isn't much, but given that the edit link is right there, is it necessary to add another one? Would you prefer to have an alternate page that just <include>d the "intro" part of the FAC subpage, with a link to the subpage? Gimmetrow 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's not really going to be the end of Wikipedia if we don't have those links; everyone gets by without them, it's just sometimes a minor annoyance (and I do mean minor). Mainly I was just thinking, if the load time effects really will be negligible or totally non-noticeable, there should be no harm in adding it. We can always remove it if, after a week or two, people think the page has gotten noticeably slower. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial request

My eyesight stinks. It's hard for me to sort indenting and so on, or to find where one reviewer's comments start and stop, when I have to go in to a FAC to sort something. If FAC regulars could have mercy on me, :) it would help if you would leave a space before starting new comments from a subsequent reviewer, and keep numerical formatting in order. Thanks for the patience :) [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK :-) Graham Colm ^Talk 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty please, with sugar on top?

Review an article? Awadewit (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any in particular you had in mind? I tend to do best when people ask because then they can't blame me if I say something they don't want to hear. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the list of FAC urgents above. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see them quite frequently. :) I try to stay out of them until I can see a slowness or a dispute is over. Also, pile ons are never that fun. I was just thinking you may have had something that was hiding among the list. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph is Bak-shi for its ninth run at FA, if you want to take a look at that. DocKino asked me to weigh in after I registered several concerns at no. 8, but I won't get around to it this week, and ISTR you had some useful comments last time. Steve ^T • C 08:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received the same note and I cringed. Those FACs always tend to be a little intense. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Povenmire

Just noticed, the FAC for this article was archived and is now not included in the page anymore. What does this mean — did it pass, fail, or something else? The Flash ^{talk} 19:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was failed, since it is on a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. It looks like nobody noted any real problems--the reason it was not promoted was that there weren't enough users who spoke out in support of its promotion, so that there was no consensus that it met the criteria. You should probably try again in a few weeks and hope for more support. Ucucha 19:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Guidance

I have a concern. Let me first say that while I'm not a frequent reviewer or nominator at FAC, I have a lot of respect for the process and the high level of rigor involved in it. And I also have no illusions that any articles brought here are perfect - smart editors work hard to bring articles up to speed before bringing them here but then fully expect them to be deeply scrutinized and criticized in a constructive way, and to sometimes fail. But I don't think anyone brings articles to FAC expecting to have themselves or their work just plain insulted or attacked by a reviewer. On both my own nomination this morning, and other recent nominations, I've noticed User:Fifelfoo being what I can only describe as hostile towards nominators and their work. While some of his comments are helpful, the overall tenor of them is often degrading to the people who have brought articles here, as when he wrote in response to a question about a source, "Please ping me when you've written the article to FAC standard?" or on another recent nomination said, "There is a level of insult in proposing an article in this state" (which he then deleted from the discussion entirely) or in use of terms like 'naive', or in another recent FAC when he said, "As you appear to have literacy problems, and are not familiar with the disciplinary practice of history..." - which is just about as clear a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks as I've seen on Wikipedia. FAC should be rigorous, but it should not be hostile. So my question is this - is there a civility guideline for reviewers anywhere? Geraldk (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Smith 2007, p. 1.

[1] Smith 2007, p. 1.

[1]