Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:46, 16 December 2019

• 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 60 (2013) 61 62 63 (proposals) (2014) 64 (2015) 65 66 (2016) 67 68 69 (2017) 70 71 72 73 74 75 (2018) 76 77 (2019) Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Image/source check requests

Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted several reviews and declarations of support. Premature requests can be removed by any editor.

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Tennena Cone/archive1 needs a source review. Volcanoguy 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Another example of Brian's excellence and leadership. How is this page intended to gain traction in the absence of something like the old {{FCDW}} which produced content relating to the FA process for the Signpost ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC source reviews

For advice on conducting source reviews, see Misplaced Pages:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

FAC reviewing statistics for November

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Brian Boulton has passed away

I received an email notice from his daughter. I assume others have as well. He was definitely one of the nice guys. I remember Ceoil once referred to him as an angel. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I winced when I read this. A colleague in every sense of the word. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a gut punch; I so dearly loved our Brainy Brian. May he rest in eternal peace and his family know how much he was loved and appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I owe him a great deal. And much like Browning's Grammarian, he kept at it to the end. A deeply felt loss.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I greatly appreciated his kindness and courtesy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

He touched all of our lives and his articles touch the lives of so many. Still, this is devastating news. Condolences to his family and so many belated thanks to Brian for the help he offered me and apologies for the many times I was grouchy and cranky, peace be with you. Thanks Ling for posting this. Victoria (tk) 22:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oy. This is sad news. And to think that this was only a month ago... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Devastating. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Brian is one of the many people around here whom I have never actually met, but has helped me become a better writer, and frankly a better person. He will be missed.Dave (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a fixture here, and definitely a great positive. He will be missed, condolences to his family and friends. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm deeply grateful to have worked with Brian at FAC and peer review and elsewhere. He was incredibly erudite, incredibly productive, incredibly steady: a great editor. Finetooth (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is very sad news. His contributions here were enormous. I really appreciated his help. Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am so sad. Brian was so giving of his time and talent - it was such a pleasure to have worked with him. Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brian for all the source reviews you conducted to keep the FAC process moving. Unfortunately, those were my sole interactions with BB. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Brian was unstinting in his help to other editors, a great guy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this. I didn't know him well, but he was extremely conscientious and helpful in any review of his that I saw. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I was shocked when I learned of it, and left a message on his talk page. Should we perhaps move the above to there, where his relatives will be more likely to look? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Very sad, FAC will not be the same. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear this. Brian was a thorough and knowledgeable editor who helped me out at FAC on more than one occasion. Kosack (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear about this. It is a very sad loss. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There ought to be a fitting epitaph borrowed from some Antarctic explorer but (to quote Brian instead), most of them are "Zzzzzzz" when not exploring. Yomangani

Dear colleagues; please know that Brian’s family have posted a message of appreciation at his user talk page, yesterday at 13:03, also informing us of the creation of a new account: Brianboulton's Family. With kind regards;
Patrick. Pdebee. 13:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

All of us who interacted with him can testify that he had a positive impact on this community and[REDACTED] at large. His legacy lives on here.Iry-Hor (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is just heartbreaking. There are very few editors (if any) who have done more for the FAC process, or Misplaced Pages in general, than Brian. I'd go even farther than FunkMonk and say the site won't be the same without him. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Johnson

I am socked in IRL for a few days and editing from an iPad hotspot. I do not know who is watching Samuel Johnson these days. Could someone have a look ... recent red-linked activity suggests student editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The editor in question has made two contributions, both edits to Samuel Johnson. I have added the article to my watchlist and shall hold the fort until RL relents for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:, thanks so much! I am momentarily on a real computer. (There were two of them, and following their contribs indicated all the classic hallmarks of student editing from an unregistered course, so I posted to the Ed board.) I don't have the time to do the usual niceties, and am disinclined to worry about C-class Ann Radcliffe, but hope the Ed Board will make contact, identify the professor, and remind them that student editors are discouraged from editing FAs.

More to the point of this page, without Mally and Ottava, I don't know what literary types are still following Samuel Johnson; I was involved mostly in the health aspects of that article, and would appreciate having others follow the article. Thanks again for your help, Gog! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup

It has been suggested that a contestant in the WikiCup who makes a significant review contribution to an FAC should be able to claim points in the WikiCup, a similar number of points to those available for performing a GA review. On the whole I would say having contestants perform GA reviews has been of benefit to the project, most of the reviews are of high standard, and the WikiCup judges (theoretically) reject poor quality reviews. A featured article scores highly in the WikiCup, and it is disappointing for the contestants if their FAC fails because of insufficient reviewers. Having some extra editors performing reviews would mitigate against this happening. Would the FAC community object to WikiCup contestants scoring points in this way? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of FAC's business what the WikiCup people want to do; after all, anyone is welcome to make a review and we don't enquire as to their motivation. In any case, FAC is hardly in a position to be choosy, overwhelmed with the number of participating reviewers as we are not.* ——SN54129 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC) *Including, of course, yours truly. ——SN54129 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I second my learnéd friend's observations in toto. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Me, I am a little concerned that it'll lead to quantity-over-quality issues with the comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it needs to be well defined, but any extra FAC contributions would be more than welcomed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 20:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why; FACs that currently only receive cursory reviews are still held over for promotion until they recieve some of depth. So no, any reviews that are determined to be lacklustre ("done for the sake of doing them") will be treated as non-reviews by @FAC coordinators: -coords; and, note that the Wikicup would also, from their point of view, also reject those FAC reviews they determined to be of low grade (well, "theoretically", anyway!). So the reviewer would not win, nor the FA candidate get an easy pass. ——SN54129 20:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

While FAC could surely benefit from more reviews and reviewers, one thing it doesn't need is more sub-par reviews (of the type we got from many WikiCup participants in the past); those can be tremendously frustrating to nominators (and particularly off-putting to new nominators, who don't always know which reviewers are experienced at the FA level). While the coords are fully empowered to completely ignore reviewers who don't engage WP:WIAFA appropriately or correctly, it is nonetheless a chore for the coords to have to sort through poor review commentary and to remember every year to go over to WIKICUP and see who is participating so they can be on the lookout for unexperienced nominators, reviewers, or quid pro quo.

At any rate, as mentioned above, FAC is not empowered to tell WikiCup what to do. What FAC can do and did do in the past was to make it a requirement for all WikiCup participants to declare their WikiCup participation in their FAC declarations or reviews. So, while FAC may not be able to prevent WikiCup participation, it should be noticed on each FAC, so that nominators and coordinators can then decide if the reviews are up to snuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems a sound suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I intended my post to reflect the reality of the WikiCup culture; I am not optimistic, based on experience, about the effect this will have on FAC, which already suffers a lack of quality reviews-- something that will become much more noticeable without our beloved Brian. The coords are likely to be stuck with lengthy noms full of sub-par reviews. But I don't see that there is much that can be done besides requiring that WikiCup reviews be noticed, and reminding the coords they are empowered to archive a FAC even with dozens of supports, if they deem them to be invalid reviews ... as I once did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have indicated in the past that I am willing to disallow reviews that were not substantive enough. This is a little harder at FAC, because reviews don't have to cover all aspects of the article as they do at GAN, but if anyone is concerned about the quality of a specific review, I encourage them to bring that to the judges' attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Gamification as a motivator of interest in a process is a well-studied academic discipline at this point. There is a risk, of course, of substandard reviews but I for one welcome some fresh participation in this process. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the other coords, but I think we have enough checks in place that there shouldn't be any issues. --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I take that WikiCup keeps a record of all actions taken as part of it? Because if we have a list of FAC reviews carried out as part of WikiCup we could check if the reviews tend to be substandard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure how we would define "substandard" in that case, since so many of the reviews are substandard now, even if not coming from Wikicup. In the work Mike Christie now does (posting stats), I used to do those stats from the FAC delegate point of view, where I rated each review as helpful, neutral, or unhelpful in my promote/archive decision. This gave me data regarding who was helping and hindering the process, but that info is known only to the person doing the promoting and archiving. I think the coords will know if a review is substandard, but the community must continually empower them to ignore those reviews, by pointing out when they occur at the FAC, and begin to again more consistently enter on substandard FACs a declaration of Unprepared, suggest withdrawal, so that the coords can get the sizeable number of unprepared nominations off the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea that reviewers coming from the Cup should declare their interest. It does mean more subjective judgements as to a review's quality by the Cup judges, but I think that we can handle that. Would it speed things up for the delegates if we were to post any judgement of ours as substandard on the review page?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wording like "does not adequately engage the WIAFA criteria" might be less off-putting to novice (and some experienced) reviewers-- the idea being to begin to grow back a cadre of expert reviewers the likes we once had in Tony1, Malleus, Karanacs, Laserbrain, and too many others to name. Goodness, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches is over a decade old; what is FAC doing today to address the reviewer problem? How much of {{FCDW}} Might be updated and used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall FA process discussion

I have been anxiously pondering if and how Brianboulton's shoes can be filled in the FA process. Reviewing Mike Christie's monthly stats does not fill me with hope that FA has the editors to fill his gynormous shoes. And reviewing WP:WBFAN reminds me that we now have way too many FAs with no main editor still watching over them, yet no plan to process older or unwatched FAs through FAR.

With those concerns as the backdrop, I have also been following a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article, where several esteemed FA writers are expressing some considerable frustrations, and feeling like "lambs to the slaughter". They express those frustrations as an aspect of how TFA is working, but I see it not as a TFA issue, rather how all three pages (FAC, FAR, TFA) should/could/once did work together. Multiple editors in that discussion expressed the idea that TFA is supposed to make sure that "articles are ready for mainpage". Where does this idea come from? That is FAC and FAR's job. And while resources are combing through every TFA to make sure they are "perfect" and "ready" for mainpage day, resources to assure we are promoting worthy FAs, and demoting the unworthy, are lacking. Many expressed the idea that there are now "too many cooks in the kitchen" at TFA. How can we get some of those cooks more involved at FAC and FAR? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by putting up blurbs a month in advance and trying to "fix" every FA at TFA?

WT:FAC is by far the most watched page in the FA process, so I am starting a new thread here. A broader conversation, including all @FAC coordinators: @FAR coordinators: @TFA coordinators may help us all generate the questions we need to ask ourselves, particularly as we go forward without the stalwart of the FA reviewing process, our beloved Brian. As Victoriaearle said, "My sense is that the either the TFA coords, or the community, need to have a discussion in terms of workflow to make things easier, not more difficult for the editors who research, write, and bring to FA-standard any article ..." Let's do it. Starting by looking at some stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Monthly reviewing stats

• November
• October
• September
• August

Well ... as long as we have Nikkimaria, we have image reviews at least. Source reviews will suffer. Content reviews are already suffering, and have been for some time; one can read through the entire FAC page at any sitting, and find unqualified Supports for ill-prepared articles all over the place-- why aren't other reviewers calling those out? Who is doing/will do copyvio checks and MOS reviews? Not only is Brian gone, but many of Misplaced Pages's best copyeditors have not been present at FAC for years, and that shows in the level of prose that routinely passes FAC now. Brian was a leader: what is being done to promote his much needed Misplaced Pages:Mentoring for FAC?

The GOCE coordinator said, "I will remind folks that the FAC process is not infallible and things have slipped through. I've seen recent FAs with typos, double negatives, and overly complicated sentence structure. These are not world-ending issues, but neither would I call these examples of 'the best writing on Misplaced Pages'. Spelling errors shouldn't pass a B-class review, but nobody wants to call an FAR over a typo." Well, yes, I've seen this too (in FACs right under six or seven supports, or in FAs promoted only two weeks ago, or in FA writers who have multiple stars but no FAs); the solution is not to have GOCE going through TFAs of even our accomplished and diligent writers; it is to strengthen FAC and FAR so that they will promote only the worthy and demote the deficient.

I am also concerned about the complete lack of Opposes shown in Mike's stats; we now see as many opposes in a month as I routinely entered in one sitting, each day. The fastest way to an FA is through vigorous use of the Oppose; we can see by the stats below that the environment had a vibrant participation level even in the days of the heavy oppose to move the ill-prepared off the page, so we could better focus on the more likely to succeed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

FACs and FARs by year

How is the overall process doing?

• Through 2007, Raul654 handled FAC and TFA alone, but had two FAR delegates (processing 500+ uncited FAs when the inline citation requirement was added)
• Jan 2008, SandyGeorgia to FAC, Raul654 only at TFA; four director/delegates in total processing 1,328 FACs and about 300 FARs (143 demoted)
• Mar 2009, Karanacs added as FAC delegate, SG and Karanacs handled all of FAC except rare recusals, Raul handled all of TFA
• June 2011, Dabomb87 is added as first TFA delegate, later replaced by Bencherlite
• Sep 2013, FA director position is eliminated by RFC
• Dec 2014, change to three TFA coordinators
• In 2019, the FA process has no director, three FAC coordinators, three FAR coordinators, and four TFA/R coordinators, as well as Johnboddie helping on blurbs. Eleven people total processing the same number of TFAs, 382 FACs, and less than 50 FARs (29 demoted).

We know one number has stayed the same throughout the years: 365 mainpage blurbs have to be written every year. Raul654, DaBomb87, and Bencherlite did that alone. FAC then was expected to produce a LEAD that could easily be used to generate the mainpage blurb; that was a main concern in reviews. Karanacs and I alone processed around or more than 1,000 FACs per year; Raul, DaBomb and Benherlite rarely complained that the leads weren't adequate for them to quickly generate a blurb. Seeing that we now have four to five people working on every TFA blurb, we might ask if FAC is doing an adequate job of turning out appropriate leads. Seeing that we now have GOCE combing through TFAs, we might ask if the demise of FAR has not come home to hit every TFA, even when it is not deserved.

When FAC processed annually between almost 1,000 to almost 1,500 articles (2005 to 2010), about half of those FACs were promoted, while FAR was also a vibrant page, reviewing deficient FAs and saving the star on a good number of them. Many FAC reviewers and FA writers participated at both pages. As the number of FACs has dropped (to around one-fourth of its high point), the promotion percentage has increased, FAC pages have grown impossibly long, articles are being pulllllllllled up to standard with excruciatingly long commentary, while FAR has gone moribund, and both pages are lacking reviewers. What can be done to address this? Are resources being allocated correctly? Would it be worthwhile to focus more on getting the less prepared noms off the FAC page faster, as we once did? Why is TFA being used to get FAs "mainpage ready", while FAR is moribund? While I understand the frustration of some of our finest writers at having their work criticized unjustly, if the overall pool of FAs is declining (because FAC is turning out less quality, and FAR is not removing the truly deficient), all FAs are judged to that standard (lowest common denominator).

When the FAC and FAR pages were more vibrant, TFA did not expect FAs to be perfect for mainpage day. Running a TFA that needed some fixing was a good way to incentivize editors to join in at FAC and FAR. Now we are dedicating a large portion of our talent pool to writing blurbs and cleaning up FAs to make them "ready" for mainpage day-- but FAC should be producing good leads, FAR should be processing the deficient FAs. FAR has a rule disallowing nomination of an article there within three days of mainpage day, because exposure to the mainpage often results in FAs being improved, and issues being addressed. By putting up TFA blurbs a full month (or more) in advance, are we extending the time that FA writers must devote to dealing with uninformed commentary from people who don't have the sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I posed a lot of questions: I don't have the answers. But it does concern me that, yes, the coordinators need to take leadership of this issue. Coords need to keep stats, observe trends, start discussions, and call out problems in the process, so writers and reviewers aren't "lambs to the slaughter". We have several frustrated FA writers, and the stats above tell an alarming story of the FA process. FA is only as strong as the worst FA out there, and over half of them are deficient. Where to start? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Reducing the number of pages folks have to keep track of is a start. Just not sure how that can be streamlined. I think there has been a pickup in activity at FAR from 2018, which is a Good Thing (could still use more eyes though). When did we transclude the FAR page to the bottom of the FAC page. Also Sandy you have to be mindful that many comments at FAC can be read as polite/diplomatic/temporary opposes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that (about the new politeness trend-- I didn't have a hard time making FA friends even though I was the highest opposer). This new "method" is obscuring to new nominators just how much work their FACs require, and leaving the impression that FAC is a place for pulling quite deficient articles up to standard. Put two opposes on the page and see the coords archive right now, so that more resources can be devoted to the more prepared nominations. And start calling out the deficient reviewers, so that the coords are empowered to ignore them (Mike Christie's work reveals that some of our top content reviewers are reviewers who consistently fail to engage the criteria appropriately.) Even with all of this "pulling articles up to standard at FAC", some pretty serious garbage is getting through, and that effort is a misuse of a considerable number of resources, which FAC no longer has sans Brian, Tony, Ealdgyth source reviews, Laser content reviews, Malleus, etc. So now GOCE considers it their remit to copyedit FAs ?? We see over and over at FAC, long lists of prose issues, replacing one short list from Tony1 that would have led to archival and off-FAC copyediting. THAT is how the GOCE should be used-- the nominators can go ask GOCE to copyedit after their FACs are archived. FA writers are clearly giving up, as the stats show; leadership is needed to shine a light on the critical issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We've had several (now archived) discussions about the trend towards not opposing, and it's never come to any conclusion. I could explicate my views on why it is so, but it'd make some serious issues for me as a FAC (and TFA coord). I do wonder if my time might be better spent doing source reviews but the last few times I've started back up, I got a lot of flack and not much support from other reviewers. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, one of the reasons for having multiple coords is that each of you can recuse when necessary. Do it! If you see a remiss source review, show how it should be done! I did it all the time. Remember that I once went over a Karanacs support ((IIRC?) on our dearest Elcobbola's first FAC, took off my FAC delegate hat, recused, and lodged a serious oppose even after Karanacs supported. It was quite an awkward thing to do, and yet we are all still friends, and Elcobbola turned into our most knowledgeable and trusted image reviewer.

The other thing that must be highlighted is that the coords continually and always need support from reviewers to be able to do their "job". We should never lose an Ealdgyth source review. I can understand how you feel, because I feel pressure not to lodge Opposes now even when I see disastrous FACs having multiple supports just above my review demonstrating significant deficiencies that should have led to immediate withdrawal. This trend is not a good thing; if the FA process had booming stats, I would say "great, keep doing what you're doing". But the process continues to do what does not appear to be working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the GOCE. My concern with them regularly copyediting upcoming TFAs is in the potential for conflict (as we have seen already) and greater reluctance by FA writers to have their work run at TFA. And of course their work would be more eagerly accepted at FAC. But I understand that the main page is still an attraction to many, though it is faded from what it once was. My initial thought was to wait and see.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If mainpage day continues to be as frustrating as some have expressed on TFA talk, we are going to lose more FA writers and reviewers. I was hoping the TFA coords could answer Victoria's concern about the new month of mainpage hell, and this new idea that TFAs must be "ready" to "perfect". I was hoping for a discussion about how mainpage day used to be used as a way to find competent editors and reviewers and invite them to FAC and FAR, and where the nitpicky perfection was accomplished (or not :) Is "mainpage readiness" a good use of limited resources, or is it leading to a decline in resources that could be employed at FAC and FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wearing my TFA coord hat - I don't consider nitpicky stuff as an issue before deciding what goes on TFA. I do make sure anything isn't into obvious FAR territory, but I don't expect ANY article to be perfect. I suspect a lot of the "TFA must be perfect" stems from WP:ERRORS and it's culture of ... well, I can't really say how I regard some of the stuff that gets reported as errors at ERRORS, but that area needs to be looked at as a huge chunk of what is driving the issues with expecting TFAs to be perfect. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Trying to be careful not to enable some of the behaviors seen at ERRORS, we should never stifle criticism. A lot of what I've read as criticism of FA prose could have been written by me. I don't think the problem is ERRORS; I think the problem started with the WP:QAI drive that diverted resources from FAC and FAR and promoted the idea that articles should be "ready" to "perfect" for mainpage, and having a TFA coord dedicated to copyediting mainpage blurbs (rather than focusing on making sure leads are ready when they leave FAC) is exacerbating the trend. TFA should do what you do (schedule articles that are above FAR level), not attempt to make them "perfect". We should be careful not to live in a bubble and ignore external critics (although some of them may be quacks) when they are demonstrable issues that could be addressed within the FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)