Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 17 October 2010

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.
To leave me a message, click here.

Template:FixBunching

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Closed FAC

Please explain I don't know why you closed this FAC; what are the unresolved issues here exactly? I responded to the commentor's question and I amended the article as he suggested. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And another GDallimore (Talk) 23:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking sources for reliability is tedious and time consuming work, FAC is backlogged, there are only two reviewers checking sources, and in these two cases, multiple issues where raised. When multiple issues with sources (WP:V is policy) appear early in a FAC, the FAC has less chance of ultimately succeeding. When articles appear at FAC, they should meet the criteria, and be ready for review. Resolving issues with reliability of sources, understanding WP:RS and presenting well prepared FACs will give articles a better chance of succeeding at FAC, and closing them if they don't allows nominators to work outside of the pressure of FAC, and reviewers to focus their limited time on other FACs. I hope working these issues outside of FAC will result in a successful next nom. There is more helpful info at User:Steve/Oppose rationale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you would have more reviewers if you took the time out to be a little more courteous towards those of us in the middle of the process. I came to FA because I believed that my article (John Babcock) had a decent chance of passing, but also because I wanted to learn more about the process so that I could contribute to reviewing articles in the future. I had only one "weak oppose" and it was closed before I even had a chance to review the concerns. Then, despite the fact that it had a very positive A Class review that only failed due to insufficient votes about six months ago, you tagged it as potentially in need of reassessment, which was needlessly insulting. So I no longer have an interest in contributing to this process. Few people get paid to do this and even fewer get any real accolades, but it is sometimes the smaller things like this that cause hard-working and valuable contributors (not particularly referring to myself here) to simply stop caring. Per the above, it seems I'm not the only one who has concerns. Canadian Paul 01:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving FACs is never pleasant and typically results in orange bars on my talk. I'm sorry that tag offended you, but the GA was passed in 2007, as I indicated in my edit summary. (I don't know where to find the GA Sweeps result, as it isn't linked in articlehistory; if you have a diff it would be helpful.) When a MilHist A-class review closes for lack of Support, that means the A-class didn't pass. You've gotten good feedback of issues to work on; if you satisfy the Opposer's concerns, please ping with a diff from Nikkimaria, and I can re-visit. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The article wasn't included in GA Sweeps as it was promoted in November 2007; Sweeps only looked at articles listed before 26 August 2007. Malleus Fatuorum 12:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MF-- am I correct in assuming that sweeps were noted in articlehistory? I thought that was the case, which is why I added the GA request here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. Sweeps were done exactly like GAs are done now, on a separate subpage linked to from the article history. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MF; disgruntled nominators are unfortunately "part of my job", but I thought my understanding was correct on this. The article wasn't swept, was a very old GA, and failed A-class at MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a "disgruntled nominator" because my article didn't pass, that's part of the job of a nominator, to accept that your article may not be up to the standards; in fact, it's almost to be expect on a first try. The important part is what you learn from it and that you come back with a stronger effort. But it seems that if the nominated article was someone well-known, like Obama or MJ, it wouldn't be closed and have its GA status questioned on the basis of one weak oppose, especially before the nominator had a chance to review the concerns. I guess it's hard to tell from the limits of my recent experience, and I don't want to make broad generalizations, but I can say that this process seems to discourage potential new recruits to FA reviewing/submission. In any case, it doesn't seem like the process has much tolerance/respect for/faith in newcomers. Anyhow, I won't clog up your talk page with this any longer. Canadian Paul 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand, but the problem with the Thrud article is that, while some of the sources may be unreliable in general terms, they are acceptable in the context under which they are being used. This is something which requires explanation within FAC, not resolution outside of FAC. But only some of them require such an explanation, eg, the external wiki. Others which the reviewer objected to are clearly reliable - being websites publishing articles and having editorial oversight - just not mainstream; hell, some of them don't even exist any more! This is unsurprising since a small, self-published comic book is a very non-mainstream topic. GDallimore (Talk) 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there were some useful comments raised while the FAC was open and I am dealing with those in the meantime. GDallimore (Talk) 13:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that is a reasonable explanation, but it helps to highlight that in your nom statement, to save reviewer time. If you can get clearance from a source reviewer, the nom can be brought back sooner than the usual two weeks. Reasoned explanations work better than attacking the overworked delegates, who have to balance reviewer and nominator concerns. :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. Isn't it you I have to persuade to re-open since you are the person who made the decision to close. You're the only person who even suggested closing the FAC. Two reviewers raised RS concerns, but I would have thought that would be par for the course and raising a concern is a long way from calling for closure. I'm not sure what I could have said in my nom statement, either, as this strong reaction came as a complete surprise: RS wasn't an issue in either the last FAC (it was all about prose style) or the GA nomination. It's also a slightly unfair expectation given that the reviewer objected to essentially every source without checking them out themselves and instead just said "justify them", which I would have done given the time.

And another PS, I agree (generally speaking) with your actions of raising a GA review for articles that fail FAC. Seems sensible enough and not at all insulting to pass it to an earlier forum - on the proviso that there has been a lengthy time or significant edits since it went through that forum. GDallimore (Talk) 21:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other here-- I'll have a closer look and respond in more detail after I catch up on a few other things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thrud

I'm sorry for the delay, GDallimore; re-visiting and re-reading the FAC, two things led me to close it:

• 1. The size of the RS list query:
  • TRS2?
  • Bulletproof Comics?
  • The Ninth Art?
  • 2000AD Review?
  • 3dtotal?
  • Grand Comics Database?
  • enjolrasworld?
  • GameHobby.net?
  • Forbidden Planet?
  • Strike to Stun?
  • Collecting Citadel Miniatures wiki? (Wikis are always questionable...)
  • Heresy Miniatures?
• 2. A Wiki used as a source.

With that level of sourcing concerns, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get the article through FAC. Here's my suggestion. Put your answers to the reliable sources queries at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/Thrud the Barbarian/archive2: I will look at them, and ask Brian or Ealdgyth to look at them. If we come to the conclusion that a case can be made, I'll put the FAC up anew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Phew. Finally got the chance to do it. I've provided detailed background information about the sources and the context in which they are bein used at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Thrud_the_Barbarian/archive2. I'll drop a message to the editors. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 12:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Comments at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 78#Thrud the Barbarian at FAC have been generally supportive. Please reopen the FAC. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 12:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The comments at RSN do not address FA crit 1c; however, since two weeks have passed, you may re-nominate, but you should be prepared to discuss 1c at FAC, since RSN did not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That just wastes everyone's time. Why should the people who have already reviewed the article be forced to review it again? Why not just re-open the original nomination so that there can actually be a discussion about 1(c). In any event, the comments at RSN DO address the points that were made and for which the nomination was closed by you: the sources were not seen as reliable, this has been shown to be otherwise. RSN did not deign to say whether they were sufficiently high quality for 1(c), but no such objection was raised at the FAN before your premature action. GDallimore (Talk) 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-opening a long-closed FAC (and rightly so) would involve de-botifying the FAC and re-doing the articlehistory, which is not optimal. If you believe you can defend the quality of the sources at FAC, please start a new FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore

Frustrating So, you closed this FAC--which I felt was premature, but c'est la vie--and tagged the talk with {{GA request}}. Over a month later, it's removed and there were no problems or even an investigation into the sources. Can we just let this go through the FAC process, please? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed, so you may re-nominate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha

Yeah, originally I planned on taking a small break then I inherited some money so I quit my job and spent some time traveling. Now the money's dried up so I've been spending more time at home and working full time again. The main reason I came back though is because I did some reading while I was taking it easy, and A Confederacy of Dunces blew me away. I'm doing a big overhaul on John Kennedy Toole right now and hopefully Zagalejo will be able to help me with some copy-editing (by some I mean writing the lead, and rewriting the body). BUt I think I'll be back for good now. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

can you check John Kennedy Toole for formatting errors and such plz k thx bye Quadzilla99 (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Zagalejo hasn't let me know if he'll copy-edit it yet. So ignore the writing for now until I get someone to look at it. Quadzilla99 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Green quotes

Hi Sandy. You said "why do we have a green quote? MOS says to avoid markup." I have looked through MOS:QUOTE again, but I do not see warnings to avoid markups. I was following the quotation style (green style) in the MOS itself (see Block quotations). Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re, the green quote at LAT: This is funny-- the green at MOS:QUOTE is for example purposes, not intended to breach Misplaced Pages:MOS#Miscellaneous. You've been led down a rosy path by a poorly written MOS example :) But I see the green has been removed since the FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo

Hi SandyGeorgia. Would you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo? I want to know if two articles by Hyde Flippo at About.com pass FA 1(c). (I plan to use those sources in Have a nice day.) No one has commented at RSN after one day. Because you provided valuable insight at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, I hope you can provide advice for these sources as well. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Update to archive: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page that I'm "in good shape there". The first time I read your comment I thought that that meant the source was okay. But I've read your comment several more times and I'm not so sure. Would you clarify? Cunard (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

There was nothing "promotional" about the site to which I linked; there are no ads, and no products for sale. Nothing was being promoted, nor was any particular type of treatment classified as "better" or "worse" than another. It was just a list of treatments mentioned in various studies and the bullet points from those studies (granted not all the studies were linked). Finding comprehensive information about medications used to treat Tourettes online is tedious, since most studies are old and outdated and consist of nothing more than "Haldol and nicotine patches were slightly more effective than placebo; hope you don't mind Tardive Dyskinesia." It's frustrating for people trying to see what options are available, especially considering many doctors just want to throw Risperdal at the problem and deal with side effects later. And many of the "treatment options" websites I've found have been full of new age hippie stuff and voodoo elimination diets that aren't backed by science, or worse, $40 eBooks claiming to teach "the magic secret to curing Tourettes", you know, the magic trick that some random person discovered that has eluded biochemists for 50 years, and they're willing to part with it for $40. So I felt the page to which I linked was useful for people looking for a neutral reference page to real, chemically-based treatments and not natural hippie stuff.

I'm not sure why you removed that link, yet didn't have an issue with the one above it (the link currently at the bottom of the list now) which takes the user to a 404 Page Not Found error page.

For my own personal research, if you know of a site with a more complete list of medications, mechanisms of action, results from clinical trials and side effect profiles than the site to which I linked, please share it with me.

At any rate, if that site violates some wikipedia rule, then my apologies, and please let me know which rule. But it is neutral and non-promotional so I figured it was ok.

(btw I hope I sent this message correctly... I've never sent a message to a wiki user before!)

Metalhead00xx (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)metalhead00xx

WP:V

Sandy, does Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_5 look okay to you? --JN466 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

procedural notification

As a reviewer at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Michael Jordan, I thought you might consider commenting at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviving dispatch - another one =)

User:Ruhrfisch/Dispatch: Finetooth and Ruhr did a good job there. Both agree that it is just about ready to run. ResMar 23:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnes in 1948 FAC

It's 4-0 now. May I add another please? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I will try to look at FAC today, but yes, please feel free to add another nom in the meantime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I believe the Alexei Kosygin FAC needs to be shut down properly. It was just hidden away infomrally so to speak YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Alexei_Kosygin/archive1 YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Bring Us Together

I've done what you asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

Hi SandyGeorgia, I'm bringing this your attention because I think it concerns FAC business and that you, Karanacs and Raul should know about it.

On September 27th I listed this version of the article for review. In her review SlimVirgin asked that I, and I alone, make changes in response to her oppose. She asked for many changes and frankly more than I could do a.) within the scope of a FAC while also juggling work and family responsibilities; and b.) at a time when I wasn't feeling well. I asked Karanacs to de-list the nomination (which I'd done a few days earlier knowing it was impossible to see this through, but Malleus talked me out of it).

Because SlimVirgin expressed regret for the oppose and because I didn't want all of Misplaced Pages and the entire world to know about my personal circumstances, I sent her an e-mail explaining why I wouldn't be following through with the work during the FAC. In retrospect that was mistake, but I didn't realize it at the time.

In the meantime, Malleus expressed his belief the article was being railroaded. I had told SlimVirgin I wouldn't mind help, all of which resulted in discussion on Malleus' talkpage. The article has been rewritten, and in my view a POV has been added.

Moreover, during the preparation I asked Elcobbolla to take a look at the images; in his review on the article talkpage he was very clear that non-free images should not be used. I spent a great deal of time searching for non-free images. The images I located, and that Elcobbolla cleared, have been deleted, while non-free images have been introduced.

In my view it's extremely disheartening to carve time away from work, friends, family, to finish a Misplaced Pages page, only to have someone take it over. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC

I see that Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Roger Waters/archive1 was restarted. I am not sure what this means. I had unresolved comments on the previous FAC. What is the best way to continue with the review now? Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The FAC had gotten too complicated to follow-- you can carry forward anything that is unresolved. A restart wipes out all previous commentary and declarations for a fresh start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010

About this edit. I don't find any dispute information on the article, not either the talk page. What are you referring to? Secondly, what is the issue about increase the archive the archive time for disputes. I have understood that it is good to increase the archive rate so the discussion can go on and disputes get resolved. --Kslotte (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely the reason you don't find a POV dispute on the talk page is because you are (consistently) causing pages to archive too soon-- I wish you would stop. I will have to retrieve the archived sections and restore them. I believe you are overly aggressive on archiving, as we've now had this discussion about three times. New readers to talk pages need to know when there is a POV dispute; disputes do not get resolved by sweeping them under the rug, and there is no reason to archive a dispute that is less than two weeks old. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. In that particular case, I haven't changed the archiving too soon, instead later. Please, point me to the POV dispute you are referring to at Talk:Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010. --Kslotte (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The archiving interval at an article talk page is subject to the consensus of editors working on that page. I would welcome a discussion on the article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Kslotte, that you are consistently altering archival times on articles you aren't involved in is a concern. That you are involved with archiving, yet can't seem to review those very archives to find POV discussions that are less than a month old, is even more of a concern. Setting up archive times so that POV discussions are swept under the rug isn't a good idea-- there is no need to shorten archival times for pages that don't get a lot of traffic. I'm aware of only two Venezuela/Chavez-related articles that are not POV, and none of them get a lot of traffic, so perhaps I could convince you to refrain from working on any archives in that area? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have understood your point. And, will watch out more carefully about ongoing disputes. But, there ar no POV disputes at Venezuelan parliamentary election. --Kslotte (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. My broader point is that there are essentially no Venezuela articles that are not POV, so it would help if you would refrain from any automatic archiving in that area. Perhaps you would be able to locate the POV discussion in archives on that article if I mention that "neutrality" is another word for POV concerns? At any rate, I am not planning to return to that article or the POV debate, as neutralizing Venezuela articles on Wiki isn't possible, so my broader point is the general one about archiving on this suite of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Major depression

I understand that you're concerned with the FA status, and that I was being WP:BOLD by adding a fair amount of material. I just re-reverted your edit, and posted an explanation of my edit here: Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Nutrition_.26_Reversions_to_Edit. I'd be grateful if you'd check that out, and let me know what you thought was inadequate about the sourcing. Also, if you have an issue with the material itself, I'd be grateful if you'd suggest a way to improve it or offer a more balanced view on the topic of nutrition on that page--the omission of the topic seems to be big enough that it would make me draw into question the article's FA status. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt

I saw you expressed concerns about Cirt's behavior at FAR and why no one, or few, has complained about it. My guess is because few people watch most of FAR. Most people ignore it and most of the rest only care about a particular article at FAR. I presume you've talked to Cirt about this. If concerns remain the next step is thisaway: WP:DR. As for me, I have no idea what Cirt's behavior at FAR is like. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to this problem is to do nothing - completely nothing, absolutely nothing. We have just seen with Malleus how engaging with him helps. Ignore the whole process and let him have the whole area to himself. No commenting, no nothing. Just a big freeze - when there are no FAs left for him to nominate, then still do nothing - leave him in complete and quiet isolation.  Giacomo  22:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, as Cirt wears the cloak of invulnerability, aka administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins are not invulnerable, I've voted for many desysops. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And you've turned a blind eye to the apalling behaviour of a great many more. Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And you've cast an appalling condemning eye at many who don't deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? And who would they be exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, see two sections below for a history of the problem. In the past, I've not found it productive to attempt to engage Cirt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC source reviews...

I have just ordered a new desktop machine, it should be here Monday or Tuesday so I can quit being stuck on this miniscule little laptop. It's fine for traveling, but does NOT lend itself to "real" work. Will run through FAC once I'm up and running on a real computer. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the new computer, and thanks again for all you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR requirements

Sandy, Can I suggest we change the FAR requirements so that a talk page discussion occurs before a FAR, like for example before a FAR can be raised that issues are first raised on the talk page and after no response to correct the issue has happened for three week. There has been various complaints on FAR in addition to the recent incident suggesting that it's not just the problem of one individual. See this on Chess FAR. By raising a FAR it makes the content disputes of high importance and therefore is more likely to lead to conflict/drama. There is already an understanding that issues should be raised on a talk page first, the talkheader template for example says 'This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ...... article'. Likewise could we close a few FAR's that are just bad energy and not likely to improve the article. Closing a FAR and asking for talk page discussion to occur first is I feel likely to be more productive to the improvement of FA's and the FAR process as a whole. Thanks for any consideration you give to the suggestion. Regards, SunCreator 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In the (distant) past, I would have opposed your suggestions, but in the current environment, I'm inclined to agree. Marskell routinely closed unproductive FARs where there was more heat than light with the suggestion that issues should be addressed on talk, and a new FAR could be brought in three months if they weren't resolved. Something has to be done to restore FAR to a place of productive work. In 2005, citation requirements changed "significantly" when the Seigenthaler incident prompted the addition of inline citations to WP:WIAFA. At that time, fully half of Wiki's FAs were out of compliance, but with a steady, patient, productive approach, we worked through those FAs, saving one-third of them. In the current environment, only 12% are being brought to status, and FAR has become a place dominated by a few delist-happy editors, and the worst of the older FAs are not brought to FAR as they should, rather sometimes specific editors are targeted. (See WP:URFA for stats.) Something needs to change to restore some vigor to the place; when I saw Malleus beginning to engage there, I had hopes that something would begin to change. We all know now how that story ended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The story hasn't ended. The positive part (of the story) has been highlighting a problem. It's now time to find, agree and implement a suitable solution. Regards, SunCreator 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what Dana boomer thinks, and unless she disagrees, you might propose these changes on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The story ended, for me at least, with me being blocked twice in 24 hours, which I am fucking pissed off about. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Understandably so. Why don't you focus on something fun for the next 24 hours? Like telling me whether 11 out of 20 makes me abnormal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hate to tell you this Sandy, but I stopped counting at 11 and I didn't make it through the entire list. Either we're both very abnormal, or very normal. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are the FAC women when a girl wants to have a little fun? I'm going to have to call my IRL girlfriends to see what I'm missing on the other 9. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually had to stop reading the list when one my kids came into the room; I quickly minimized it. After all - it's about secrets! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how being a mom trains you to find that minimize button so quickly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What's worse is doing the things you'd never ever let your kids do. I'm strict about checking the history on the computer, but then there I am quickly minimizing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Since no one wanted to have fun and indulge my contest, I just e-mailed my 11 out of 20 to Moni. Hilarity (and psychoanalysis) deferred until her sinus infection is over. If you want a copy, you'll have to request it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a great followup: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the original import of this thread, I have very unpleasant opinions about recent FAR nominations and <parallel noun phrase deleted>. I will very graciously refrain from saying anything more, but I agree with sentiments expressed above that <long rant deleted>. • Ling.Nut 01:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, pig headed nationalistic defensive behaviour of bad 1c/d articles seems to be operating as usual. Doesn't that mean FAR/C is working just as planned? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In many cases, yes-- but we've lost the idea of restoring articles to featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there's a community of interest problem. FAC has a reputation as a high quality reviewing point, and FAC editors often go down the chain into topical A reviews, GAN reviews and PR to ... uh ... well in my case it is stop stuff in MILHIST going wrong before it hits FAC. Occasionally it is to improve high quality content to make its FAC transition easier. MILHIST's review process seems to work because a similar community of interest has formed. With FAR and FARC, no community of interest seems to exist. Content creators are long gone by the time an article hits FAR (Can you imagine German Inner Border being FAR'd successfully for improvement?). Often FAR'd articles have deep problems which the community of involved article editors can't resolve themselves, and then they bring their dirty laundry to FAR/C. Maybe putting FAR nominators on the spot as content article improvers such as FAC nominators are expected to be; and the FAR/C overviewers disallowing repeated FAR nominations from FAR nominators who failed to content improve against criticism during the process? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the past, there was a community and a culture of improving articles at FAR, and nominators were expected to (at least pretend to) help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to say so without being blocked yet again I think your view is a little naive Fifelfoo. Simon Byrne could easily have been saved were it it not for the determined efforts of a nominator who has taken it upon himself to target the FAs of those he perceives as his enemies. That's what's got to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(Well, for one my local English is en-Au, so while I avoid using obscenities out of respect for other Englishes, they don't concern me. And for another, about the only PA I've found myself reacting to are people attempting to characterise my politics as part of an ad hominem.) That out of the way, I cultivate a deliberate naivety in order to AGF better. (My non-naive attitude rather rapidly characterises the kinds of arguments put by some editors as being the result of a ideological bias they wish to inject into the encyclopedia due to a personal access to the One True Version; and I can't afford that reaction emotionally or editorially.) Do you think restricting future nominations by editors who failed to content improve FAR/Cs they proposed in the past would solve the problem you believe exists, Malleus? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. I don't see any reason why nominators should roll their sleeves up, but I do think that they should voice their concerns on the article's talk page before invoking the nuclear option. Once again, if you look at Simon Byrne's FAR it's interesting to see how the nominator responded when that point was put to him. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH, as a single instance, it doesn't appear to be overly problematic, nor does it appear to be best practice behaviour. However, now that my attention has been drawn to the issue of poor community editorial oversight of FAR, and the lack of a collegial editing culture at FAR, I will be attending more closely to FAR in coming days. Thanks for expanding my review interests. If I do identify problematic behaviour as an outsider, I'll weigh in. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If it were a single instance then it wouldn't be problematic, but it's not. It's just the most recent example of an ongoing problem. Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec with Malleus) The delegates would love it if more outside editors got involved when they saw problematic behavior. Also, I would have no problem with a requirement to post on the talk page in advance of FAR (maybe 2 weeks minimum?, just to throw a number out there - it's not going to kill WP if a sub-par article remains an FA for another couple of weeks, since it has most likely already been that way for a while, and it might help editor relations if FAR wasn't sprung upon unsuspecting editors. Although there is generally no or little response, it isn't hard to leave a note just in case (and I know I'm as guilty as anyone of not doing this sometimes). Well, that's my two cents; if anyone here wants to raise this as a concrete proposal on the FAR talk page, you have my support. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Interested editors should be aware that I have been Bold at Template:FAR-instructions. Thank you. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice. However, I have changed "nominated are expected to help with improvements" (paraphrasing here) to "nominators are encouraged to help with improvements". I don't think that demanding nominator involvement will help the process - however, strongly encouraging it may. Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Good modification. The earlier "typically" seemed a little bit too, hrm, hopeful about a sometimes non-existent practice. Anyway, template talk exists if the change goes through BRD :). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Would actually saying "strongly encouraged" help, do you think? I want to make the point that we would really like nominators to do this if they are able, but without making it a concrete policy. Dana boomer (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
        • They're both better than my bureaucratese disciplinary "expected" :) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Given that Dana agreed, I think this was a good (bold) move-- the talk page at FAR isn't very active, so just doing it probably made sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for dropping in with my two cents here. I think the issue here is that there has been this false perception that once an article is FA, it should always be considered such until someone yanks it over to FAR at some distant point. Reality check - given the ever higher expectations for FA status, plus the natural entropy of wiki-based editing, most (not all) FAs are starting to get shabby around the edges within 6-8 months. Instead of waiting for the inevitable stripping of the bronze star some time down the road, I would propose that articles only retain FA status for one calendar year after their promotion and then automatically be recategorized to a FFA. They could regain FA status (often quickly and easily) by being renominated for a modified "FA-lite" process, but the nominator is responsible for addressing concerns. There's a much higher chance that the lead contributor(s) will still be around for this process than for a FAR five years down the road, and it has a greater chance of addressing the entropy early on, and encouraging people to maintain. Of course, this is just a very rough proposal, but I think now that we're creating sufficient FA-level work to get us through a year of TFAs, it's time to consider it. One caveat - someone absolutely needs to redesign the FFA symbol. The big red X through the bronze star is, well, fairly insulting. Risker (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how we could shoulder the added burden of another process when all content review processes are so badly in need of reviewers, and very few editors are doing all the work at FAC and PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Most of the FARs I get involved in have not "degraded" much, they just come from the days when many fewer citations were acceptable. One day, not soon, we will catch up up with these - I don't believe FA standards have changed much since say 2008. If an article really has degraded, there is always the oprion of reverting to the version that passed FAC; but for many 2006 ones that doesn't help. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This page routinely lists FAs most in need of cleanup, and it is linked at WT:FAR; that certain editors are targeted at FAC when there are other FAs more in need of attention suggests that FAR is possibly being used to bludgeon some editors. This trend started several years ago with a now-banned user, but has continued since that ban, and the timing of this downward trend happened to coincide with the exodus of Marskell. Joel31 also gave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The cleanup listing hasn't been updated for quite a while as the bot that maintains it has been down. A new bot is in the works to take over updating the listings, and hopefully will be up and running soon. The listing does still have some good information on it, it's just not completely up to date at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know-- I looked at a few of them and wondered what was up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, I'm glad to see the change in FAR instructions. I hope they'll be helpful. However, reading the Simon Byrne FAR really is instructive. Cirt's behaviour is within the rules, but it is easy to see why Malleus rapidly became irritated with him; Cirt's response to Malleus' improvements to the article is not to thank him but to point out more problems. When Malleus took him to task for this, Cirt says he's "not complaining, just listing serious source problems with a purportedly "featured" quality article". Perhaps true, but very irritating to the person doing the work. The rules change won't address this. I don't know quite what would resolve it -- in the real world interpersonal feedback from one's colleagues would rapidly give someone the idea that they were behaving in an annoying way, but online communities aren't so susceptible to that feedback channel. I would expect someone acting as Cirt does to understand why what they're doing is annoying, but we don't have (and I can't come up with) a mechanism to change that sort of behaviour. It reminds me somewhat of civil POV-pushing -- the problem editors there stay strictly within the rules, which is precisely what makes them such a problem. I should add I've only looked at two FARs, and can't join in any general criticism of Cirt as I haven't been following the situation. But the Simon Byrne interaction looks like a problem to me. Mike Christie (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the "purportedly" comment particularly irritating, pointy, annoying, and disrespectful. Too many editors don't respect or understand the devotion and work that are poured into FAs, and most often, those are editors who don't engage in same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt's "Keep" vote at the Ormulum FAR also seems calculated to irritate. Again it's technically by the book; but the only reasonable interpretation is that others at that FAR were not "polite and professional". I wish there were an effective way to respond to that sort of rudeness. Mike Christie (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a trick commonly deployed by admins like Cirt. You can see the exact same thing in the Simon Byrne FAR. The rule for admins is that if you don't mention a specific editor it's perfectly OK, but the rule for non-administrators is that anything an admin takes exception to merits a block. Did I ever tell you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Cirt may well find himself alone in FAR quite soon; I certainly won't be going back there until something changes, maybe not even then. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did go look at Ormulum (even though Geogre hated me), and was quite troubled to see numerous misstatements about WIAFA throughout the FAR, and that a cite.php citation style has been imposed upon the article, changing the original parenthetical style!! This highlights another one of the newer problems at FAR-- a change that coincided completely by chance with the other changes I mentioned above. When Marskell and Joelito were managing FAR, I did all the grunt work for them, and shepharded each FAR through, correcting such misstatements as they occurred and trying to keep FARs on track. When I became FAC delegate, I became less and less able to do that work, and no one has picked up for Dana as the "sidekick" that I was for Marskell. Someone knowledgeable about WIAFA needs to help Dana shephard FARs through, so this doesn't occur again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy: Cirt and I chatted off wiki last night and by the end of that conversation I felt confident that he has been trying to act in good faith, and that I really should have talked to him directly before I complained on your talk page. I believe I was wrong to assume he had any awareness of the negative construction I and others have placed on his posts at the Simon Byrne and Ormulum FARs -- I was surprised to hear him say that, but after we spoke I felt it was true. I've posted a note to Cirt's talk page with the apology I feel I owe him, and thought I should let you know since my original post was to you. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Old St Paul's Cathedral

Sandy, the nominator of Old St Paul's Cathedral (nom) has asked for it to be withdrawn. Based on his comments it appears it's my oppose that is upsetting him. I don't usually find myself in this position as I try to be helpful at FAC, and it does seem to me that the fixes needed are not that hard. (I asked Malleus to take a second look, and he felt I wasn't out of line.) Anyway, just wanted to let you know that the withdrawal has been requested. If you have an opinion about my comments there I'd be glad of that too, but it's not a big deal since Malleus already gave me a second opinion. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike-- I will look later today, but generally when a nominator requests withdrawal because they seem upset, I let it ride a bit just to give them time to think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

PS, I know you to be a conscientous and respectful reviewer, and I saw your wise and considerate post to Malleus, so I don't need to weigh in on that aspect, but please feel free to point me to any feedback on talk pages I might not have watchlisted if they will help me determine whether the nominator has considered if the issues can be addressed during a FAC or is just temporarily upset and it may pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Slippery slope

Hi Sandy, I do agree that it's better not to clog up ANI any further, but I'm happy to share my thoughts with you here.

First of all, as you know, Ormulum was written principally by Geogre, an editor whose contributions I very much admire. We both agree that his style of writing is much more conducive to parenthetical referencing, and I tried to defend that position as best I could from the beginning of the review. In an article that has reached FA status, there really is no doubt that WP:CITE#HOW describes exactly how we should respect an author's original decision.

On the other hand, I view templates as a convenient means to an end. The reader detects no difference between a well-crafted manual reference and one produced by the equivalent citation template. I can see that both you and Gimme regard the use of templates as a difference in style. I don't, and only see them as a difference in mechanism.

That leads me to the question of what difference exists between "manual" and "templated references".

Templates impose a stylistic order on the information in them, so it is easier for an intermediate-level editor like me to use them, safe in the knowledge that what the reader sees is a consistent style. Experienced editors like yourself or SlimVirgin can produce manual references that are perfectly consistent in style, but most would have to look for examples and work out the order, punctuation, and text embellishments to do that. Templates also have the advantage that they are easily identified by bots, and much of the routine work of maintenance (dead links, adding doi, etc.) can be delegated to them.

On the other hand, SlimVirgin complained to me that large, heavily referenced articles using templates are sometimes almost impossible for her to edit. I investigated that and found that once the number of templates in an article exceeds about a hundred, the server struggles to create the page, sometimes taking up to a minute to do all the thousands of substitutions needed for it to expand all the templates. Despite my obvious enthusiasm for the benefits templates as I perceive them, I acknowledge that problem, and would not suggest converting any large article to templates for that reason.

Nevertheless, I doubt that anyone would think it wrong to expand bare urls and poorly or inconsistently formatted references to what WP:CITE#HOW calls a "full reference". The devil in the detail is, of course, the mechanism used to do that. If I'm working to improve the referencing on a stub or under-developed article, I have no doubt that using templated references throughout is an improvement, because it often forces me to supply missing information to the references, and creates examples for future editors to make use of, while ensuring that the style (that the reader sees) stays consistent.

So that leaves me with a somewhat ambivalent position. I don't believe that using templates (or not) is a question of style, and I don't believe WP:CITE#HOW was intended to frustrate attempts to bring the benefits of templates to poorly referenced articles that would be improved by them. I do believe that huge articles like Israel create problems for editors when templates are used. I also believe that some well-developed articles, like Ormulum are written in a style that is inimical to the use of the templates that we have. Finally, I believe that many articles fall somewhere between these extremes and that the BRD cycle is appropriate on an article-by-article basis to decide the issue.

Sorry it takes so much space to fully explain myself, and I don't expect that you will necessarily agree with all of my reasoning. Nevertheless, I do think my position is self-consistent. You can perhaps appreciate that I sometimes find problems with editors who misuse the intentions of our guidelines and frustrate the improvement of an article, as well as those editors who ignore those intentions completely – with the same result.

I should add that I hold your contributions Misplaced Pages in high esteem, and I'd be more than happy to take on board any thoughts you may have on the issues I've outlined above. Regards --RexxS (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the long explanation and the kind words-- I sorta got lost in the TLDR ANI thread. I think we mostly agree, and I am also ambivalent. For example, in the Venezuela suite of articles, I actually endorse the use of citation templates for similar reasons to yours-- too many different editors weigh in there, those articles are rarely long, and the citation templates would impose consistency. At the same time, I respect Rd232's right to a style on an article he started, as long as it's consistent. But, on the ANI matter, we do need to refocus the issue so we can avoid another date-delinking debacle, and it bothers me that Gimme is being maligned there. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have this page watchlisted, so I'm going to respond to this: "I doubt that anyone would think it wrong to expand bare urls". WP has no deadline, and at some times in an article development, to "expand bare urls" is similar to putting lipstick on a pig. It can mask problems. Some editors (typically working with the B and C class content) tend to "fill out" a reference when they verify it and the content it references, and they may use "bare urls" as a cue for things to check. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I hadn't realized I do that. When I clean up a Ven or medical article, I don't usually format a ref until I've verified it. Good point! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You won't be surprised that I disagree with the suggestion that expanding bare urls is anything but an improvement. We produce content for the benefit of the readers, not the editors and leaving bare urls is a disservice to the readers. Since Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, we should not be dismissive of other editors who come along and do that expansion. I take the point that a bare url may be an indicator that the reference ought to be verified, but that's a convenience for the editor, not a reason to object to another editor who sees it as a flaw. --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The {{cite journal}} family of templates produce a citation style that does not match any style in use outside of Misplaced Pages. So converting from manual citations (which are likely to follow whatever style is used by the article's academic publications) to template citations is likely to produce a different style of citation that is visible to the reader. At times, the templates have also been in flux, meaning that even if one did manually create a citation to match, a comma may change to a semicolon, for example. So mixing manual and templated citations is likely to be problematic. The biggest problem with them is that they take the Misplaced Pages server ages to parse and format, and they generate hugely bloated HTML for the poor reader to download. This was why Eubulides (talk · contribs) created the {{vcite journal}} family of templates, which differ (as far as editors are concerned) only by the initial v and the loss of a few seldom used parameters. They produce citations following the Vancouver system used by some medical and scientific journals. Colin° 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're reminding me again of all the reasons for hating the citation templates. They are the real problem on Wiki, but Gimme is taking the heat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Colour issue

The "colour issue" can be seen by comparing and , and it's being discussed at Talk:Halle_Berry#Awards_style. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)