Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:08, 3 October 2014

• WT:FAC

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (2007) 22 23 24 25 26 (2008) 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability) 35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41 42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate) 49 (2011) 50 51 52 53 54 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58 59 (2013) 60 Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Image/source check requests

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive1 – another opinion needed, first source review is disputed Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Life without bots

Am I correct that we don't have bots updating article history anymore? Going on that assumption, I tried to teach myself how to do it by following Maralia's instructions at User:Maralia/FA bot but I got lost with {{ArticleHistory}} because I don't know what's supposed to go in those fields - so I reverted what I tried to start. But I'm thinking if we don't have a bot, this is something we should all learn to do so we don't have talk pages with the "please leave comments" still displayed. And if we are now manually updating, maybe we should remove the "don't manually update" message. And … (sorry, being a bother) … if the bots got lost when the everything was moved to the WMF Labs, shouldn't we ask somewhere (Villagepump technical maybe?) to have them make a new bot? The updates are a lot of work, and personally I think featured articles are sufficiently significant for the project that it's something that should be supported somewhere. But if not, as it seems not to be, then we shouldn't expect the delegates to do the work, and we'll have to learn ourselves to close the FAC. Sorry, long post here - short question is what is supposed to go in the articlehistory fields? Please ignore if this makes no sense. Victoria (tk) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, we are still pursuing a couple of possibilities, either repairing the old GimmeBot or creating something similar from scratch. In the meantime, kind souls have been doing the manual closures per Maralia's instructions. I have to admit I thought there was more detail there about article history for the uninitiated, so I might add a footnote shortly on just what to do and them perhaps you could have another go and let me know the result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If clear criteria for the bot can be spelled out I may be able to produce a bot. Chillum 16:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that offer, Chillum -- let me just see where we're at with the possibilities already in train first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What else is in the works? As chillum notes this is a pretty narrow and potentially well-specified task. Shouldn't be too much trouble to make a new bot. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

the old instructions for MilHist ACRs are quite detailed. They could easily be adapted for FAC if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, great minds, Harry -- I'm just in the process of adapting the article history part of those instructions for the footnote I promised Victoria... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that footnote about article history is now at User:Maralia/FA bot if Victoria (or anyone else) would like to take a look -- happy for improvements if anything can be better expressed, but in the meantime it's way past my bedtime down here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, that's very helpful. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, I came looking to see if there was a problem with the bot... and am I correct in thinking there is? I'm not entirely clear what's happening, is this a widespread issue or something just effecting Gimme? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new bot to handle FAC, which I will be testing this weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Many tks again for that Hawkeye. For everyone's info, Hawkeye implemented a bot to close MilHist Project A-Class Reviews not too long ago, so it occurred to me that his talents could lend themselves to a FAC bot as well (possibly sparked by HJ's comment above). ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

New Bot

I have a new Bot. I will now have to go through the procedures to register it. In the meantime I will run it manually as a script each day, checking what happens. I would like the delegates to simply mark articles as passed with {{FACClosed|promoted}}. The bot will move the nomination from the candidate page to the log page. This saves messing around with the end-of-month processing. The Bot will create the new month for you. Some questions:

1. Who are the delegates? My preference would be to create a special category for them, like we did for the MilHist coordinators.
2. The Bot adds articles to Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page by adding the appropriate {{Article history}} but how do I find out what topic the article is under to update Misplaced Pages:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Tks mate, we owe you one. Would have to double-check point 2, but re. point 1, a while ago I created {{@FAC}} to ping all FAC coords in one hit -- does that do the trick or would you prefer something else? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, if the bot could also handle {{FACClosed|archived}}, which requires the FAC nom page to be closed and the transclusion to be removed from WP:FAC and added to the archived nominations page, our joy would be complete... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a {{FACClosed|withdrawn}} as well, right? —Designate (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We have to be careful because these are the same template where any choice of words can go where I have put the asterisks. {{FACClosed|****}} Graham Colm (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to confuse the issue for the moment with the "withdrawn" parameter but we do occasionally use it FTR when a nominator, for whatever reason, asks for the plug to be pulled on the FAC. The actions for the closer (or the bot!) to take in the case of {{FACClosed|withdrawn}} are exactly the same as for {{FACClosed|archived}}. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, to answer your second question - WP:FANMP is generated by taking WP:FA and stripping out all of the articles wrapped with {{FA/BeenOnMainPage| }}, just leaving those that have yet to run (or adding "none" where appropriate). But when I say "is", I really mean "was" because the bot that used to do this is offline... Is there any chance that you could add this task to your list? That would be very useful. (The advantage of having WP:FANMP as a clone of WP:FA is that then only one page has to be specifically updated for promotions/demotions/renames, rather than two.) Bencherlite 09:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that is easy to do. I have updated WP:FANMP page. Now we are back to the original problem of how to correctly update WP:FA ie how to put the articles on the correct categories. For example, when the bot looks at William Barley, it sees that it is a book, a biography and a classical music article. What did you file it under? Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks, Hawkeye7. (Two minor issues on the FANMP page - could we have "none" where the sub-category is empty, and could we avoid the initial dot at the start of each list? Compare e.g. this). As for your other point, my understanding was that the coordinators add articles to WP:FA, not the bot. @FAC coordinators: is this still the plan? Bencherlite 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. As to the second point, my preference would be for the Bot to handle it, so there would be only one manual step. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A quick thought, but if the coordinators want the bot to handle adding the page to the list(s), a simple modification so that they could use {{FACClosed|promoted|section}} to instruct the bot which section to which the newly promoted article should be added. So for example, when U.S. Route 141 was promoted a month and a half ago, Ian Rose could have added {{FACClosed|promoted|Transport}} to the bottom of the nomination with his signature, and the bot could have taken care of the rest. I'm sure the bot could set so that attempts from others to initiate promotion would be ignored, or possibly deleted. Just some food for thought. Imzadi 1979 → 19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes! That would be ideal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Such enthusiasm! Before we go too far, though, the request was to automate Maralia’s instructions, no more at this stage. Having to choose the right category for the promoted article in WP:FA, was one reason the FAC delegates always did that step manually. The other reason for the delegates’ manual work would’ve related to the frequency of the bot, so we should confirm that before automating those items. The idea of adding another parameter to FACClosed to allow the bot to determine where to put the article in WP:FA is elegant, but I for one don’t carry all those categories around in my head so I’d have to go to WP:FA to decide where it goes and what the exact section name is before completing FACClosed, which wouldn't represent a saving in time (Graham might have a different perspective). FTR, the tasks the delegate performs after adding the FACClosed template to the nomination page are:

If FACClosed = “promoted” then

1. Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC
2. Add FAC archive page to Featured Log
3. Add article name/link to appropriate section of WP:FA (note/link article name in edit summary) and increment total number at the top
4. Add bulleted article name/link plus date in the form (dd mmm) to FA section of WP:GO

Else

1. Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC
2. Add FAC archive page to Archived Nominations

As far as I’m concerned, an article is promoted or archived for the purpose of the nominator kicking off another FAC (if promoted) or commencing their two-week waiting period before another (if archived) the moment the FACClosed template is added to the FAC page; the remaining steps however are always actioned ASAP afterwards (at the very least on the same day) to keep dates consistent. I don’t consider the above tasks onerous so unless the bot can handle them very soon after the FACClosed template goes in my first thought is to leave them out of it, particularly adding the article to the appropriate section of WP:FA, which as I say probably wouldn't save any time. Again, I’d like Graham (and Ucucha if available) to offer opinions before we decide on additional work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Also sometimes we have to italicize the title of the article - or part of it - using a piped linked when adding it to the FA page. I too can't always remember the FA section headers and occasionally deciding on the right section is not straightforward. (I can't think of an example just now). I think it would be best for the bot to complete Maralia's instructions and leave the rest to us. Graham Colm (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, good point about the formatting, Graham -- e.g. italics for movies, TV shows, novels or albums, but inverted commas for episodes, short stories or songs, plus mixed formatting for ship names, etc, etc. I think we'd have to add another parameter to FACClosed for pipelink style and, again, in that case we may as well just do it ourselves in WP:FA. As to a category example, well I considered several biographical sections for the recently promoted Fanny Bullock Workman before finally going with my first thought of sport & recreation in light of her mountaineering achievements... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I am filing a formal request to create a new Bot. There will be some testing of bits of bot, so do not be alarmed. But do report anything that is wrong in some way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception sections in music articles

I just reviewed City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song); I don't review many music articles so I took a look at several articles on singles or albums that are FAs. I was surprised to find that the critical reception sections in every one I looked at are essentially listings: "Critic A said this. Critic B said that. Critic C said the other." See Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)#Critical reception, Talk That Talk (Rihanna song)#Critical reception, and Kala (album)#Critical reception for some examples. I looked at about ten of these and found very little variation. Occasionally there's a little structure: perhaps the first paragraph is positive reviews, and the second is negative; or the sentences are written to embed quotes in statements about the good or bad qualities of the music, rather than simply listing critics, but this isn't the case for most of these.

I criticized City of Angels for having just this structure for the critical reception section, but now I'm wondering if other reviewers agree with me, given the apparent precedents. Does this sort of section really meet criterion 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"?

I looked at some of the classical music articles to see if I could find alternative models, but it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. See L'Orfeo#Reception and performance history, for example; there's a narrative there, with quotes placed in service of the narrative, but one suspects there are not twenty newspaper quotes available for the article writer to use if they wanted.

I've marked my review of City of Angels "leaning oppose", though not only for this reason; do others think this is a valid reason to oppose? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue Mike. I also find this writing scheme to be trite, and surely not that interesting to the readers. I don't know who/when set this standard, but it definitely fails to get my attention to read the entire article. Nominators usually defend themselves by saying there are other FAs with similar (or identical) stricture, but the point is to please the reader, not bore him.--Retrohead (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• (1) For me, what makes a good Reception section is following through on the opinions. It is easy for a critic to say the song was "compelling" (and for WP to report this) but surprisingly few explain why (it is compelling). The critic-by-critic flow of this particular article could be improved with better transition (e.g. 'similarly', 'alternatively') to help guide the reader in comparing/contrasting critic POVs. (2) Quotes need to have a purpose, so "...spins the tale of his decision to move to Los Angeles and his earliest days there" is an unnecessary as a quotation in a Reception section. Also, paragraphs should not be used as arbitrary breaks. (3) Reception sections are inherently going to be opinion-heavy and therefore should be heavy with quotes and be directly attributable. Misplaced Pages should not be re-writing or interpreting critic opinions (e.g. if they said the song was "corny ballad" then they meant corny ballad; not dumb-hokey-cute-unprofessional-mediocre-whatever) - and it was that one critic's opinion. maclean (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  All good points, but I'm not convinced that this is enough. The critical reception section should summarize for the reader how the song (or album, or whatever it is) was received. The ideal source is an article about the artist that says e.g. "Blowing in the Wind is regarded very well by critics, with many calling it Dylan's finest song". That's a secondary source giving a summary of the overall set of reviews; the article writer can easily produce a summary statement about the song from sources like that. Simple lists of review statements is the same error as listing individual research results in an scientific article instead of stating the current scientific consensus on a topic: it can sometimes be justified, but it should be the exception.

  When there are no summary opinions in secondary sources (which is nearly always the case for a typical song) then I think the best option is to pick some of the more respected sources available (national papers, Rolling Stone, etc.) and use those as examples to illustrate the positive and negative reviews. Even simple statements such as "most reviews were positive" are risky: did the writer check every review of the song in every music paper? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

FA was not passed, but why?

After many edits and corrections, this FA process eventually ended with everything being addressed. Then nothing happened, which is why I posted my (unanswered) question above. Today I noticed that the process had closed with a not-nom, although there is no reason for this given, and I was not informed of this closure. Can someone let me know what's going on here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for the coordinators, but after two months with no supports I would expect this to be closed and archived. I also can't speak for the reviewers, but I can tell you if I review an article, and everything I list is dealt with, and then I don't support, it's often because I have reservations about the article. The FAC for hartebeest last year is an example. I will try to articulate them if I have time, but occasionally that doesn't happen. To put it another way: supporting on a FAC requires the supporter to believe it passes the criteria. Sometimes this is not quite the same as having all one's comments addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And sometimes it isn't even that; I've had it happen before that the reviewer just kinda forgot about it, so I pinged them and it worked. In my experience, simply not supporting if you don't oppose doesn't hurt an FA nom; the problem is when you don't get at least three supports, period. Tezero (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So, wait, I had to go back and garner support votes in order to close successfully? And no one mentioned this before closing it? Now what do I do, go through the whole process again?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. The description could probably be more explicit about this being necessary, but frustrated nominators might resort to less-than-reputable methods to get their articles the three necessary supports. (Do you want to get socks? This is how we get socks.) I think a solution could be for the coordinators to look over old nominations with fewer than 3 supports but no opposes and, if they support the passing, go ahead and pass it anyway. Tezero (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we might be on a slippery slope by allowing fewer explicit supports, remembering of course that it's not just a numbers game anyway -- support has to be backed up by comprehensive reviewing and awareness of the FA criteria, as well as resolution of outstanding comments. Maury, I might suggest that as the reviewers, like the coords, are all volunteers, it would be useful to the entire process if you reviewed some other FACs when you nominate one. It's not a requirement of course, and we don't encourage QPQ reviewing per se, but it helps you become better known in the community, which can lead to people keeping an eye out for your noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Why so few support/opposes?

My first attempt at FA failed and I learned it was due to too few support/oppose votes - namely zero of either. So I re-listed and the same is happening. I was started to feel depressed until I took a look at the list as a whole.

I started at the bottom, as those would likely have the most fully developed reviews. Scrolling upward, I found that most of the listings are lacking any sort of "vote" one way or the other. Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories has three supports yet these took well over a month to gather, Luo Yigu has a single weak oppose, Hemmema has a single support. These reviews take up eight pages on my very large monitor and span a period of months, yet there's a total of five votes, which of course means that most of these articles will fail FA.

Now, of course, the articles that have passed are likely removed from this page relatively quickly, so it's a biased sample. Generally, how many FA's are failing for lack of votes?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The coordinators are best placed to answer that question, but the cause is simple, and is a perennial problem: there is a shortage of reviews. It might speed things up if reviewers gave preference to older nominations with less than three supports. I try to do that myself when I review. I'm not saying there's any obligation on reviewers -- they should review whatever they want. And of course getting more reviews would be much more helpful than simply changing the priority of what to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While we do have a shortage of reviewers, I might ask if you've been reviewing other people's articles? Often editors will be willing to review an article by somebody who reviewed one of theirs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As a radical idea, what if we were to form a list (or category) for users willing to be arsed in the event of a dangerous review famine? I'd join it, because inactivity-failing is incredibly petty to me. Tezero (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier just to review some articles? Eric Corbett 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If we knew about their urgency, sure. It's not realistic to expect everyone who'd be open to helping out an editor in need to keep a constant eye on the FAC list - some may be rather myopic in their wiki-activities by nature but willing to help if needed. Please, before you call an idea "radically stupid" take a moment to think about the people who might benefit from it. Tezero (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it not realistic? I've not infrequently reviewed articles that are about to drop off the end of the list, and I flatter myself sometimes saved them from being archived. How many FAs have you reviewed this week for instance? Eric Corbett 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Two. Again, it's not unrealistic not because these people wouldn't be willing to do them, but because they wouldn't necessarily know about them. Think about it this way: you'd be willing to buy your friend dinner if he didn't have any cash on him, right? Does that mean you'd call him up every evening to ask if he had his wallet? Tezero (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are any stupid ideas being floated here but there may be some potential reinventing the wheel. Aside from checking out the bottom of the FAC list, there's also the 'FAC urgents' list at the top of this page that I usually update every week or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently most nominations aren't communicated in interested projects (checked a few project talkpages). While some projects use article-alerts, such alerts are easily overlooked, so some people won't even know, when reviews are being needed for a topic of their interest. We (nominators, reviewers, coordinators) really need to do more to "advertise" our activities and bring more people on-board. Suggestion: make talkpage notifications for all interested projects (see article talkpage) a mandatory step of the nomination. It's a bit more work for nominators - but getting no feedback must be even more frustrating. GermanJoe (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Many people who might be interested are often not aware, so alerting isa good option - I find folks are often interested and take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely; WP:VG keeps a very regularly updated list of FACs, GANs, PRs, etc. where we might not naturally keep up with this stuff otherwise. We don't have a whole lot of inactivity failures as a result, and we boast quite a speedy GAN process compared to most content areas: it's rare for a VG article to be awaiting a review for more than a month or so. Tezero (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I comment at featured pictures fairly often. I have never commented here because the standards for a featured article are more complex so I have never attempted it. Chillum 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A good way to start is when reading, to think, "how could this be improved?" and go from there - what's it missing and what's hard to read, then going to look at and then check sources etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just took a look to see if there was a sensible way that I could comment on the article and help move the review, but it is so far outside my areas of interest and expertise that I really don't think I can. Generally the majority of articles that get featured do so because there is a community of editors with similar interests that work conjointly on the articles whether they be hurricanes, battleships or 19th century English literature. I think it would make sense if you went to the wikiprojects that have to do with engineering, physics and naval technology to see if you could recruit reviewers. Some people think this would be "canvassing" but that is only because they already have a network of people they can count on for congenial reviews.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many comments above, so if you don't mind I'd like to comment on the comments:

• There are a number of comments about a lack of reviews, and/or a lack of reviewers. I do not find this to be the case; in the examples I am looking at there are extensive reviews, but few or no votes. Sturmvogel 66, your review of my FA went on for page after page and we fine-tooth-combed it to a T. But you didn't vote.
• Tezero mentions a mechanism for ensuring freshness, which seems like a very good idea. But again, we need votes, not more reviews - personally I think the review process is fine. But this gets me thinking...

Again, I'm going purely on personal experience here, but in my case Sturmvogel 66 performed a superhuman review of the article in question, and I implemented perhaps 95% of his comments. At no time was there any sort of red flag issue, or even general comment to the effect of "this sucks" - it was largely clarity edits, GR and REFs and similar cleanup, the content of the article remained the same throughout. A second review of that depth seems unnecessary, but here I am in a second review, with no votes. This is not always the case, there are numerous examples of FAs where there are concerns being expressed by the reviewers. But certainly the list maintainers can tell the difference. So what about a "end of days" process that calls for votes on articles that have been extensively reviewed and appear to have no problems? Instead of simply archiving them, we have a short list of items that are ready to be voted on without further major review. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience (which is admittedly sporadic), there are two big reasons why reviewers might be hesitant to firmly support or object. If you support, you are basically vouching for the article and declaring that you vetted it according to all the criteria. It's much easier to just declare your comments addressed and walk away, because it doesn't leave you responsible for criteria you might not feel qualified to judge. If you object, you are also more likely to attract an undesirable reaction from the nominator than if you just leave "comments". I objected to a recent nomination; the nominator called my judgement and ability into question, then proceeded to go combing through my contributions to see what nominations I had supported so he could point out that I'm a hypocrite for supporting articles he perceived to be inferior to his own. Shortage of reviewers indeed; who really wants to subject themselves to that behaviour? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're at the heart of the matter here Spike. And if this is the case, we need to address it head on. Perhaps the call for votes would address this... bear with me here. What if the FA process had two parts, one being a call for comments, and a second being a call for votes. The first would be essentially identical to what we see today, people leaving comments on how to improve the article. There would be no votes during this period. The second would start when the first concluded, essentially the archive point as it is today. In that second part it would be straight-up votes, no more comments (unless obvious and simple? or even that?). Does that make sense? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Just quickly before I hit the sack, the 'call for comments' alone, rather than declarations of support or opposition, is really what Peer Review is for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with this suggestion. The established FAC process has served us well for many years and I see no reason to change it because a nominator feels that their article is not attracting enough reviews. FAC is not about votes; it is about reaching a consensus, which is not the same thing. I disregard unqualified "support"s and "oppose"s, especially if they are from inexperienced reviewers as they are not helpful in judging whether a consensus has been achieved. What we need is more reviewers who are willing to take the time to read the FA criteria, read FAs to see the standards required, and contribute good reviews. FACs do not fail "for lack of votes"; they are archived because the coordinators cannot determine if a consensus has been reached or there is well-argued opposition to promotion. Of course, we need to see explicit declarations of support – but please do not regard these as votes. Graham Colm (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So Graham, are you saying that you don't count support/oppose? Because that's the opposite of what you told me before, and precisely why I started this thread. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to endorse what Graham has just said – and pay tribute to him and Ian for their continued fair-minded and painstaking management of the FAC process. I don't think a "call for votes" would work—those disinclined to declare would simply ignore the call. Like Eric, above, I sometimes watch the latter end of the FAC list, to pick up on nominations that aren't getting much reviewer attention. Looking at the current list, I see most of the noms that have been here for four weeks or more have had lots and lots of attention – some of the reviews are stupendously long. This probably reflects the fact that peer review is not working well – perhaps 40% of peer reviews get no comments at all. Ah, for the days of Ruhrfisch and Finetooth! The only oldish FAC noms with rather sparse attention are Murder of Leigh Leigh and Didier Drogba; I will review one of these – maybe Eric might do the other? (You can have first pick, Eric). Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't fancy either of those Brian, particularly not Drogba, as I have an aversion to BLPs. Besides, I'm still working on the FA review for Bonshō, which I'm not ready to support yet. Eric Corbett 15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I like numbers. Here are the numbers for every article on the list today:
Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories - 4 pages of review, 2 votes
Luo Yigu - 4.5 pages, 1 vote
Hemmema - 3 pages, 3 votes
Rodent - 16 pages, 2 votes
Amphetamine - 7 pages, 1 vote
Briarcliff Manor, New York - 7 pages, 3 votes
1850 Atlantic hurricane season - 2 pages, 2 votes
Stroma, Scotland - 7 pages, 1 vote
...And Justice for All (album) - 3 pages, 1 vote, 2 conditionals
Caesar Hull - 4 pages, 3 votes
Fez (video game) - 7.5 pages, 1 vote
Murder of Leigh Leigh - 2 pages, 2 votes
Didier Drogba - less than one page, no votes
Xx (album) - 18.5 pages, 3 votes
Ashley Tisdale - nothing
Not My Life - 7 pages, 1 vote
Interstate 69 in Michigan - 9 pages, 3 votes
Chandralekha (1948 film) - 5 pages, 3 votes
Bonshō - 4 pages, no votes
Temperatures Rising - 2 pages, 2 votes?
Turquoise parrot - 3 pages, 1 vote
No. 1 Squadron RAAF - 2 page, 2 votes
American paddlefish - 1 page, no votes
Oxford College of Emory University - 1 page, no votes
Æthelstan A - 1 page, 3 votes
Barn owl - 4 pages, 2 votes
Ontario Highway 403 - nothing really
Master System - 4.5 pages, 1 vote
The Seinfeld Chronicles - less than one page, 2 votes
Acacia pycnantha - less than one page, 1 vote
Carl Hans Lody - 1.5 pages, 1 vote
The Boat Race 1993 - less than one page, 1 vote
Battle of Warsaw (1831) - 3 pages, no votes (1 stricken)
AI Mk. IV radar - 1 page, no votes
The Fifth Element - 3.5 pages, 1 vote
Margaret Bondfield - 3 pages, about 5 votes
Tony Hawk's Underground - 2 pages, no votes
William H. Seward - 2 pages, 1 vote
HMS Formidable (67) - 2 pages, no votes
2003 Sri Lanka cyclone - nothing yet As one can see, there is no lack of reviews, but there is a lack of votes. If this list is judged according to the criterion on the main page, the vast majority would go to archive. How many? Well there are 40 items on the list, 10 are in for re-review due to lack of consensus on their previous run. That's 25% of the entries. That of course ignores the ones that never bother to come back, which I suspect is the majority of these examples.
Looking over those noms, it appears that they all failed for the same reason: lack of votes. The Fifth Element is one example, in spite of two votes. In fact, only Didier Drogba appears to have been actually opposed, which implies that the other nine died for no good reason.
So it appears that this is a fail-bad process, and it is being called a surprising number of times. If this doesn't indicate breakage, I don't know what does. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Maury but I think there’s a touch of IDidn’tHearThat here. Pls re-read for instance Graham’s last post above. The list you’ve made really doesn’t mean anything in terms of judging consensus to promote, or otherwise. As has already been explained, FAC isn’t about ‘votes’. If that was the case then we could get a bot to promote and archive nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not review much anymore (or do much on WP, alas). That said, I still occasionally review here. If it is not an article I reviewed before FAC, I am more likely to just comment initially 9neither oppose nor support, though I will try to indicate which way I am leaning). With fewer reviews I am more hesitant to oppose right away if there seems to be some chance of the outstanding issues being resolved. My fear is that I do not want a nom closed just because I opposed based on issues that might have been fixable. Thanks to Brian for the heads up. Ruhrfisch _><>° 01:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, which is why the coords look at commentary, rather than just supports or opposes. I've left noms open with one or two opposes that looked fixable in a fairly short timeframe, it's when we see fundamental issues that clearly need a lot of time to address that we're more likely to archive. So my message is, don't be afraid to declare an oppose, you can always change to a support, or at least strike the oppose, if and when the issues are addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I rarely oppose, which is mostly because I've read the article, or most of it, before starting my review and if is going to be not ready or a ton of work, well, I have only so much time. I won't spend time at FAC with articles not close to the criteria. I'll often PR them or give them a heavy copyedit, but I don't feel that can be done adequately under the time pressure of a FAC. Just my view. I generally PR if asked if I think I can be of help.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is close paraphrasing acceptable?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The question of whether limited close paraphrasing is acceptable to Misplaced Pages is interesting. However, it's still not brilliant writing so I think its use would fail 1a anyway. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a fine point; I agree! Brilliant writing would never heavily rely on close paraphrasing, but FTR, per Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright:

Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Misplaced Pages articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.

Also, per WP:NFCCP: "Misplaced Pages pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method."

So really, our policies and guidelines already strongly discourage close paraphrasing. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the use of paraphrasing is disputed at Xx (album), it would help to get an additional spotcheck for its FAC for OR and/or copyvio. Nominator Dan56 is skeptical about Rationalobserver's source review. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the source of my skepticism. Dan56 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)