Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:51, 24 April 2008

Archives

Archives for former FARC process Archive 1: May 2004 – Feb 2005; Archive 2: Mar 2005 – Sep 2005; Archive 3: Oct 2005 – Feb 2006; Poll: Mar 2006 poll on policy; Archive 4: Feb 2006 – Jun 2006 Archives for current FAR process archive 1: to July 2006; archive 2: to Sep 2006 archive 3: to Dec 2006; archive 4: to Feb 2007; archive 5: to mid Jun 2007; archive 6: to Jul 2007 archive 7: to Jan 2008; archive 8: to Feb 2009 archive 9: to Mar 2010; archive 10: Apr 2010 to 2011 archive 11: 2012; archive 12: 2013–2018 archive 13: 2019–2021; archive 14: 2021–2022 archive 15: 2023–

• WT:FAR

See also: Misplaced Pages:Featured articles with citation problems.

Long-term updating of articles

Is the long-term updating of featured articles something that WP:FAR concerns itself with? This is sort of related to the "stability" criterion of the featured article criteria, but probably a better way to think of this is whether articles can go "stale". I'm thinking in particular of contemporary articles, written at the time of an event (eg. disasters or other news stories), and whether or not a failure to keep the articles up-to-date is a problem. News articles that go stale look bad, because it looks like they were intensively worked on at the time (for obvious reasons) and then have been neglected since, which isn't really what "featured articles" should be about. Sometimes much of the long-term aftermath material can go in a separate article, with only a summary needed in the main article, but the articles need to be kept up-to-date, otherwise they end the story just after the event and then fall silent, and the reader is left wondering what happened next - again, not something that featured articles should do.

The specific example here is Hurricane Katrina and (presumably) Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. I've raised this issue three times before, and some updates have been done. I've now raised it a fourth time, and started this discussion here. PLease see the following talk page threads:

• Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 7#Clean-up and reconstruction operations?
• Talk:Hurricane Katrina#Updating and expanding reconstruction bits
• Talk:Hurricane Katrina#Still not up-to-date
• Talk:Hurricane Katrina#More updates needed (current discussion)

So my questions are what should be done in the general and specific cases? Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really grokking the question. Featured articles should be accurate (1c) and comprehensive (1b). If they're not, we can review them. The best way to handle this, though, is to leave messages on the talk pages and the relevant WikiProjects asking that the articles be updated, identifying specific areas that need attention, are inaccurate or are not comprehensive, give it some time, and then come to FAR if they're not updated. Have you invited the original author and WikiProjects tagged on the article pages to this discussion or shared your concern with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Up-to-datedness" has been a concern on a couple of reviews. I note it as a comprehensiveness concern when I move an article from FAR to FARC, although 1b doesn't actually mention it. My advice would be the same: hit user talk and active WikiProject, if there is one. If that doesn't work, well then, bring it here. Don't do that until you've exhausted article talk though, lest people think you're jumping the gun with the nomination.

(Grokking the question?! That's a new one :). Marskell (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm a bit puzzled that you are both saying I should take this to the talk page, as I thought my comment above made it clear (if you follow the links) that I have raised this on the talk page several times over the last few years since Hurricane Katrina. If there is a general lack of response over the course of two years, is that not a concern? My more general point is that 1c and 1b don't work well for articles about current or ongoing events. It was predictable that the Hurricane Katrina article, and others like it (eg. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake) would accrue more information over the succeeding years - more so than, say, an article about the Great Lisbon Earthquake (which is not to say that historical subjects don't change as new research is published, it is just that the change needed for current affairs articles is more predictable). In other words, an article may satisfy 1c and 1b when it passes FAC, but it will more likely than not start to go out of date immediately. That seems to be to be a type of instability. Just something that might be worth flagging up - maybe make a list of the featured articles that may need this kind of attention, and try and raise the profile of the updating work needed. It is depressingly common for people to actually avoid editing featured articles because they are featured. There is an {{update}} template, but putting that on featured articles might not go down too well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you posted to Titoxd (talk · contribs) about this thread? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now, but the Hurricane Katrina article is only an example. It is the general case I'm asking about here. I could go through all the featured articles and list those ones about events or products that are still regularly making news, and then see how up-to-date those are. Would that help? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the distinction; any article can become outdated or inaccurate over time, so I can't see the benefit in singling out specific articles. In any case, it seems the general answer would be the same: if you identify a WP:WIAFA deficiency in a featured article, you raise it on the talk page or the relevant Project or with the principle editor (if still active), and if that isn't successful, then a review would be the next logical step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking at some of the examples you raise here, some of that could have been avoided (today) if the article writing (then) had accounted for Misplaced Pages:MOSDATE#Precise language—but some FA reviewers rail against WP:MOS, so getting other reviewers to uphold it is sometimes like swimming upstream. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Precise dates - that's sounds like what I was saying before on that thread you've linked to... sorry, this thread. :-) Anyway, I happen to think that some articles are more likely to become outdated, and I'm about to spend some time trying to prove it by looking through all (well, nearly all) the featured articles! Wish me luck! Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, by identifying articles that deal with current events and that might be outdated, you don't prove that all the other FAs are any more current and accurate than those you identify are, so it doesn't seem a good use of time. Better would be to work on enforcing precise language at FAC to begin with. As far as tagging FAs, I stuck some udpate tags on 7 World Trade Center just last week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PS And they're still there, but editors have lives. Also, when I put the tags at 7 World Trade Center, I realized we have some really snazzy features for articles that may need updating. As of March 2007,{{update after|2008|03|01}} causes the update tag to remain invisible until after March 2008, and then show up as As of March 2007, so you can flag things that need updating by a certain time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I won't get through all 1906 featured articles! But it should be interesting. Like you, I came to 7 World Trade Center because it is the first on the list, but I did have the thought: is it possible to get a list of all the featured articles about living people? Even better, is it possible to have a list of all the featured articles that are biographies of people (living or dead)? That should be easy (cross-reference with the WPBiography tag or the "year of birth" categories and the "Living people" category), and those two lists would be useful. It appears that Category:FA-Class biography articles (458 members) includes a list or two as well, but that is a pretty good approximation. Now I just need to cross-check that with Category:Biography articles of living people. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see what that will accomplish: what about, for example, medical articles that regularly become outdated by new advances? Films, with stats about box office data. Or sports articles that regularly become outdated on stats? They all can become outdated; I just don't see the benefit in singling out any individual category or group of articles. (This thread has made me feel stupid from the beginning :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if I approach it from the other end? Would you agree that some articles are more stable than others? For example, Georg Forster is something that would only need small improvements over time. Unless new biographical material emerges, there is unlikely to much to challenge the "comprehensiveness" criterion. I hope you will agree that Katie Holmes is more likely (indeed, certain) to need updating? The dead people versus living people (with the exception of recently dead people, and here recent can mean years - the definitive biography of Elvis Presley could not have been written immediately after he died), is a good example, but the divide is still more between those that have become part of history (Forster) and those who are (or were) part of contemporary culture. Articles have a greater inertia the older the topic is, if you know what I mean? Anyway, think of this more as being about dividing up the featured articles by more categories than just those found at WP:FA, and ignore the "updating" bit if you like. Have a look at User:Carcharoth/Featured articles needing regular updates for a modest start at getting a handle on the featured articles about "people" (heavily based on Category:FA-Class biography articles). I'm sorting out the 413 bit at the moment, just need to twiddle things in a spreadsheet. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't get it. Almost all articles need regular updating, and I don't see why focus on bios or hurricanes, when sports, videos, films, medical articles and so on are no less in need of regular updating. A shorter list would be which articles don't need updating, and I'd question a lot of what might end up on that list. Sorry, but I'd rather see people go review some articles currently at FAC and FAR and pick out the issues with precise language that our reviews are letting through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll either wave from this side of the room if I decide to go back to finding the featured articles on living people, or wade into FAC with a "PRECISE LANGUAGE" banner... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it ! (The latter, that is :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now notified the WikiProject as well. My question over there was whether they, as a WikiProject, devoted time to keep FAs up-to-date. Obviously most hurricanes don't need so much post-event attention, but I would have hope that Hurricane Katrina would have could a bit more attention from someone (I may try and do something myself later). My general question about FAs hasn't been answered though: do people think that the little bronze star can sometimes discourage people from updating an article, or lull them into a false sense of security "it's featured so it must be OK"? Sandy has used the "update" tag - is it accecptable to use that tag more widely, or should the talk page be tried first? Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between how FAs and other articles are edited, and I don't see adding that little inline tag as disruptive or bothersome at all (big driveby tags bother me on well-written articles, but that's true whether FA or not), so I'm indifferent to whether it's raised on talk or by adding the little inline (but I did/usually do both). The nice thing about adding the little inline is that any new editor might see it and update the data, even if they haven't read the talk page. Another thing you can do is to add the update needed inlines with a date that triggers a month from now, and then leave a talk page note, so the editors are warned in adavance and have a month to work on them before the invisible tags show up. On the general issue of keeping FAs up to date, as we've learned here on FAR, almost none do. If the original editor doesn't do it, usually no one does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One of my points has been confirmed by Titoxd's response here. My concern is that people are actually avoiding updating the article because they fear (probably rightly) that partial attempts at updates would imbalance the article. I also suspect that people are more wary of doing this updating because it is a featured article, and they are waiting for an "expert" or someone with enough time, to come along and do the updating. In other words, rather than updates taking place the normal way for Misplaced Pages, the achievement of featured article status has contributed to impeding further updates. But this is common to all featured articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the concern, you need more than one example to prove a systemic problem. I have no idea if this common to all featured articles. Marskell (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FA London congestion charge doesn't make sense

This doesn't make any sense to me -

"In 2007, the Fifth Annual Monitoring Report by TfL stated that between 2003 and 2006, N2O emissions fell by 17%, PM10 by 24% and CO2 by 3%, with some being attributed to the effects of reduced levels of traffic flowing better, with the majority being as a result of improved vehicle technology. These accounted for a falls of N2O by 17%, PM10 by 24 percent and CO2 by 3 percent. In total the rate of fall in CO2 has been 20%."

I'm bemused by the fact that the article is a featured article.

I'd like to edit it but gave up because the inline referencing format and text make it too time consuming to read and edit. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That bit was incorporated here quite late in the FAC cycle. Gimmetrow 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's as may be - it still doesn't make sense though. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Help please

I want to list Book of Kells for review because it lacks inline citations, but it looks like a long and confusing process. Could someone help me through it? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Constitution of Belarus

Can I have some more eyes at this FAR; I personally need folks to tell me exactly what to fix. All I have here is just general ranting about Belarusian politics and asking for expansion of other articles not related to this. Thanks. User:Zscout370 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can look at it either tonight or tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

when articles are downgraded from FA-status (redux)

Original Discussion → Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review/archive 7#when articles are downgraded from FA-status

I agree with the cited thread that nomination for a down-graded FAR to GA-candidate would be a poor choice of outcomes. In the case of Korean name, the outcome was a transition from FAR→B-class. The FARC input did not suggest what outcome class the article should be placed at and I am wondering if the current best-practice is, in fact, to do a FAR→B transition so that the article is placed at the threshold of the class-review process to begin working up once more to GA then A and eventually FAR? Thanks for additional input on this topic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All de-featured articles are switched to B-class; GA is a separate process from FA, and articles can re-apply there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So to clarify, does this mean that when an article is promoted from GA to FA, it is no longer considered a GA? Or do those specific types of articles still retain the GA rating and when they lose the star, they revert to GA? BuddingJournalist 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles promoted to FA are removed from the GA listing (by GimmeBot), but the articlehistory shows that they were once GA. Defeatured FAs don't revert to GA; they need to re-apply. Most articles that are de-featured would not quality for GA, as they are typically defeatured for reasons that would also preclude a GA rating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Then a summary depiction of the overall promotion-demotion process would look something like the graphic at right? This assumes that an article needs to be GA-Class before it can be considered for FA-class ... which might be incorrect. Pardon my lack of experience but what is the process for reaching A-Class? There are some embedded questions in there like 'Is A-Class relevant any longer?' and 'Is article promotion from B-Class to A-Class a third, parallel pathway?' Oh, and there is that final question ... is this the right forum to pose this question to? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No: neither B-class, A-class or GA ratings have anything to do with the FA process. See Talk:Ima Hogg. ALL of the other processes you mention vary in consistency across Projects and depending on editors who evaluate them. FA is the only community process. The rest are unrelated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the image to reflect your input; the original version is located here. The absence of a class-designation on the original article indicates that an article could be nominated for FA-status regardless of its current class ... even if it has not been otherwise classed. Is this closer to the current situation? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't make any sense of the new diagram, but: 1) yes, an article can go from zero to FA (and most articles of experienced FA writers do that, bypassing other processes), and 2) all de-featured articles are rated B-class by GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I had some problems with adding the 'demotion' label ... does it make more sense now? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No; it doesn't show that some articles do go through B, GA, and A-classes to get to FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is shown by the "no class label" document - that originating document could be B-class, A-class or GA-class ... doesn't matter. If I were to draw all possible paths, the image would be more path than document and label ... I'll do another minor tweak to try and make it clearer in a few minutes. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

gee - took tooo long ... a good image with explanatory text --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I might be missing something but would it be wrong to list "She Shoulda Said 'No'!" for FA review? IMO doesn't seem FA material, I could be wrong though. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You would need to supply reasons relative to WP:WIAFA, and it's courtesy to first raise the issues on the article talk page, and allow the editors there time to correct any deficiencies you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Monthly update of substantive styleguide and policy changes

Sandy and others have requested regular updates of substantive changes to MOS (not just copy-editing). I hope I haven't left anything out that's substantive. Here's the whole-month diff.

3 March – 3 April 2008

Manual of style, main page

• Multiplication symbols. Added: Do not use an asterisk to represent multiplication between numbers in non-technical articles. The multiplication sign in exponential notation (2.1 × 10) may now be unspaced, depending on circumstances (2.1×10); previously, spacing was always required in exponential notation.
• Images. There were minor changes to the advice concerning the direction of the face or eyes in images, and concerning the size of images.
• Punctuation in quotations. "Punctuation" was added to the requirement that "Wherever reasonable, preserve the original style, spelling and punctuation".
• Em dashes. "Em dashes are normally unspaced" was strengthened to "should not be spaced".
• Instructional and presumptuous language. "Clearly" and "actually" were added to the list of words that are usually avoided in an encyclopedic register.
• '"Pull" and block quotes. Removed: Pull quotes are generally not appropriate in Misplaced Pages articles. Added: Block quotes can be enclosed using {{quotation}} or {{quote}} (as well as the existing specification, i.e., between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags).

Layout styleguide

• "See also" sections. Clarification that links should be presented in a bulleted list, and that rather than grouping them by subject area, it is helpful to alphabetize them.

Non-free content policy

• Criterion 8. The second clause was removed: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Licensing policy

• A new resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, promulgated 23 March 2008

TONY (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• A page has been established for users to notify substantive changes to styleguides and policy pages here. Monthly update summaries will be stored on a dedicated page here in chronological sequence, as a service to the community. The summaries will not rely on the notifications alone, but will involve a survey of the whole-month diffs for each of the major pages. TONY (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Signpost on FAC and FAR/C reviewing

This week, it's all about the aspects of reviewing that are critical to maintaining WP's high standards, and the other advantages of being a reviewer. Here's the link:

Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches

Happy for the word to be spread, since we need more reviewers; if you have a mind to alert others at WikiProjects and the like, please do. TONY (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama FAR

I have closed the Obama FAR neither as a keep nor as a remove. My reasons are many and I will discuss them if deemed necessary.

An administrative question: How do we handle FARs that are not kept nor removed? For example, Barack Obama was not successfully reviewed but its status was not removed either. Do we create an additional category? What do we call it? Joelito (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can archive it the same way I archive withdrawn FACs, that bypasses GimmeBotification into articlehistory, but preserves the file. Let me know. Great call, btw; I hope the editors will settle down and consider dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't move it to archive, GimmeBot isn't triggered, so let me know if I should handle it like I do withdrawn FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you edit the article's talk page manually Sandy? Editing the article history template? Joelito (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, on withdrawn FACs (where there was no "decision" per se), I move the FAC file to the next open archive, and don't add it to articlehistory, but do leave a note on the talk page. If I did the same here, it wouldn't be in articlehistory (since AH has to be Keep or Remove), but it would be linked on the talk page and linked in any subsequent FAR. If none of those work for your purposes, then we're asking Gimmetrow to redesign the options in articlehistory and with GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I left Gimmetrow a note, so he'll probably be on soon, but it may be possible for him to simply add a "no decision" option, and then let us archive it normally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you want me to put the top and bottom closed tags on the FAR while we wait for Gimmetrow and others to weigh in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult to add a third result without a third archive page. If an article still has the star, then isn't that a "keep"? Gimmetrow 05:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So, if Joelr31 wants to instead, we can just move it to archive3, clear the redirect indicating "previous FAR closed" (rather than withdrawn), and not enter in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds best. Gimmetrow 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, they can move it to archive3, don't tag Kept or Removed, clear the redirect indicating "previous FAR closed" (rather than withdrawn as I do on FACs), remove the FAR tag from the talk page but leave a new talk page section with the link, and not enter in articlehistory. That's basically what I do on withdrawn FACs. It's 2 am here; I've been waiting up to see if I needed to help out with this, since the regular editors probably don't yet know the FAR is closed, but I'm off to bed. Manual sample steps are at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#GimmeBot steps if Marskell or Joelr31 need them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran it through the bot this time without updating the AH template. Gimmetrow 06:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Joel, I seconded Andyvphil's appeal here. This is not a withdrawn article and I believe declaration of consensus or no consensus is necessary. I am interested in your reasons and you may wish to enumerate them on this talk instead of that. JJB 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice for Andy to talk to Joel about his decision if he wanted clarification. I'm sure there were a variety of sound reasons why it was closed this way. FAR is not a substitute for dispute resolution, and in this particular case, it seemed as if the FAR process was being entirely subverted. Note the numerous out of place keep/remove votes despite the many pleas by Sandy for editors to read the instructions, all to no avail. BuddingJournalist 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a third category, occasionally, in closings: basically it's "considered invalid or unworkable for review, for the timebeing." That's imperfect, but it's sometimes true and I understand Joel's action. FAR is not dispute resolution and it is wrong to expect the people here to mediate content disputes. I archive reviews of this sort as keep, but somewhat uncomfortably, as they have not actually been "kept." I support AH not actually recogonizing reviews of this sort. Marskell (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind excluding this from article history. I find that odd, since for an active article like this article history is a place to get a quick summary of what has been going on with the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From my POV, like a premature, withdrawn FAC, the reasoning is that it shouldn't have been at FAR to begin with. The editors involved never engaged dispute resolution, and never understood or followed the FAR process. So, what we have is a page labeled as a FAR page, filled with ranting that belongs in dispute resolution but never engaged the process of reviewing an article. It never should have been at FAR, it doesn't belong in articlehistory any more than any other dispute resolution does, and I repeatedly implored editors to read and understand the FAR process. I endorse the way it was handled. Also, it may help to contrast it with other FARs; Che Guevara came to FAR with at least a year-long POV dispute, poor writing, poor sourcing, MoS errors throughout, in need of review for many reasons. This article has good writing, good sourcing, a few MoS issues that were easily cleaned up, and a recent dispute related to current events: very different situation. Another FAR was closed as a Keep last summer in spite of not receiving a thorough review because of some handwaving and hollering that went on; that Keep probably shouldn't have gone in articlehistory as a Keep, because the purpose of FAR wasn't really engaged. Those are examples of why I agree with the conclusion of not recording the event in articlehistory as a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume, just for the purpose of argument that I am right that the article fails FAR criteria 1(d) but currently has FAR status. Are you saying that it should keep its FAR status until such a time as there are no disputes on the POV of its content? No existing DR process will produce this result, and such attempts at DR as have been attempted have had little if any result. So that assertion amounts to saying that once FAR is awarded to an article that becomes lastingly controversial it can never be withdrawn. Surely not. Andyvphil (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My initial intention was to re-start the review, much like a restarted nomination in FAC. After some thinking I concluded that a proper review was impossible to achieve at the moment. Since the article was not successfully reviewed I could not archive it as keep. As was mentioned earlier FAR is not dispute resolution. Whenever an article requiring DR comes to FAR, achieving consensus for either keeping or removing its FA status would be nearly impossible. How can it be decided if there is no consensus for keeping its status or no consensus for losing its status? Joelito (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy. If there isn't affirmative consensus that the article should have FA status it shouldn't have it. The default is "not FA". Andyvphil (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Restarting the review with more controls on off-process posts could be OK, but not adding the current version to the article history was a good call, I think. FARs 1 and 2 followed procedure and promoted teamwork, concluding normally with versions that can now stand as earlier high water marks for article quality. But FAR 3 closed with a less than optimal version that still needs attention due to persistent reworking by two (or three, or four) editors that seem more concerned with pushing text and maximizing airtime minutes than maintaining article quality. Warnings against edit warring have been heeded by the more quality-oriented editors, leading to the result that parts of the article have been appearing rather tattered. That has to be a disappointment for our readers, and doesn't put Misplaced Pages in the most favorable light. Fortunately, there are also other sections that have remained quite stable and readable. My hope is that we can gradually move the "battle ground" sections into truce or peace status, but obviously that takes a lot of negotiating and won't happen overnight. Another reason why a hastily executed FAR can't work for this article. Reopening the FAR while resetting the clock to zero might be the best way to win more equal time for further discussion of quality-related issues. --HailFire (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with Hailfire more. The article is better now than it ever has been, in terms of its content, because so much more is known about its subject and because it is starting to receive the attention of editors who are not part of the fan club and recognize some of the the gaps and misrepresentations in that content. For example, the article contained the sentence, "As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.", for something like forever. Actually, working for Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, his workload wasn't always so high-minded. For example he represented Davis' Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp. when WPIC was sued by the city of Chicago for not providing heat to tenants, shortly before WPIC went into business with Rezmar. This kind of content problem just can't be caught by FA reviewers looking for pleasing style, proper choice of hyphens and citation style. But that kind of content omission meant it did not then deserve FA status, despite getting it. And it does not deserve it now. And there's no point in repeating FAR, because that's not going to fix it. As you say, you don't do content disputes, and this is a content dispute. Time to follow procedure, move to FARC, lift the FA if/when the problems aren't fixed, and let the editors behind the article apply again when the article arguably deserves FA status. Even HailFire admits it doesn't deserve it now. How else can you read his assertion that parts of it are "tattered"? What is the argument for letting it keep the little star while waiting for it to deserve it? Andyvphil (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes fall under the purview of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. FAR does not have the resources to mediate disputes of this nature, and trying to force an active content dispute through the FAR process will achieve little and is not the right use of FAR resources. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for help in dealing with content disputes. BuddingJournalist 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I opened the FAR and I am completely independent of the page. It was and is not my intention to use FAR as dispute resolution. But because the page is clearly and manifestly unstable it fails one of the featured article criteria and should be downgraded. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Stifle! Everyone, to me the obvious compromise is reopen stage-1 FAR as "on hold" and redirect all to discuss only whether or not there is consensus to close (I think there isn't). All other discussion should go elsewhere and invoke DR. After we see what happens in DR for a couple weeks it will be clear whether this should move to FARC due to instability, or move to closed due to good faith in pending truces. This is not a simple case of "should never have been brought": warring and instability, besides invoking DR, are also signals for FARC. JJB 15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The point that Stifle may be leaving out is that we can't allow an otherwise fine article to be de-feautured only because of (hopefully transitory) disruptive and tendentious editing; if we did that, everyone who had a beef with an article could destabilize the article, and then ask that it be defeatured. As far as re-starting the FAR, I don't see that will be a productive option until some form of dispute resolution is pursued (I suggest a mediator), the handwaving and hollering stops, and some editors understand that removing a star won't remove partisan differences, which need to be solved elsewhere. Productive and non-tendentious editing is possible and there are good and patient editors involved in this article. I do a simple test to determine how stable/unstable an article is: I list the MoS, referencing, and prose issues to see if they're cleaned up. On a really unstable article, editors usually can't keep up and can't even do basic MoS cleanup or keep the citations and prose clean. I don't see that happening on Obama: with the exception of a limited content dispute, it's a clean article. I immediately noticed, though, which editors quickly re-introduced undiscussed text and new MoS and citation errors. When issues are coming from a small group of editors on an otherwise fine article, it's best to work that through dispute resolution, and then come to FAR if/when there is much more going on. Just a few posts above show that if the FAR is re-opened, it's likely to head the same directions (long political diatribes and discussions). And we don't discuss only whether there is consensus to close in the review phase; we identify and discuss how to improve the article. A few editors here are instead focusing on how to defeature the article. (Disclaimer: as stated on both previous FARs, I am decidedly not an Obama supporter, but I don't want us to head down the slippery slope of using to FAR to de-feature articles because of current events and headlines.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess I'm the one committing "long political diatribes and discussions", but I didn't decide the FA criteria. If you decide to drop "comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral" then I won't have to deal with POV tags being reverted on the grounds that that they are vandalism on an article that has FA status. The fact I tried to get across is that it is a spin suitable only for Obama's campaign site that in the period between when he returned to Chicago after law school and when he ran for office he was employed doing good works a as a civil rights attorney. We list several of his supposedly good-government projects. Defending the nonprofit front for his boss (who like his friend and business associate Tony Rezko found it very profitable to set up projects that failed, without the necessity of owning them) against its slum tenants who wanted heat in winter doesn't fit the campaign line and was omitted. Nobody is asking you to solve this content dispute. Just apply your own criteria and junk the star. What part of ""comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral" am I missing? Andyvphil (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Stifle, please don't do this; the issue of how to reflect this FAR in {{articlehistory}} is well discussed above with consensus at least from Marskell, Joelr31, Gimmetrow and myself, and probably others. When you add it to articlehistory, it triggers the articlehistory error category, which I sweep daily, causing extra work. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the link. The FAR should be linked (somehow) from the talkpage. I don't mind how, but removing all trace of it isn't on. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Allrighty then. OK, you've misrepresented me on Joelr31's talk page, altered Raul's talk page (I've never seen someone go to those lengths on his talk page :-), and now altered the articlehistory against consensus so that an error is triggered. You initially stated you were a neutral admin in this FAR, but you're going against consensus here and starting fires. I hope you'll reconsider. Article milestones is specifically intended to track an article's progress through specific steps; it is not designed to track dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Right then. I'll get my fire extinguisher.

• I've clarified on Joelr31's talk page that you did not have an opinion on the article being in need of cleanup, only that you've pointed out some fixes (which you did) and I'm incorporating them by reference.
• I've apologised to Raul for moving around his talkpage.
• And this should fix the talkpage so that it doesn't cause errors while still linking the FAR. Feel free to tweak the wording.

I hope this will convince you that I'm not trying to go against consensus, trigger errors, or start fires, merely to make sure that the featured article review is considered properly and either closed or escalated to FARC as appropriate. :) Stifle (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Better (and thanks for all of that); now we won't have everyone who tracks the articlehistory error category running about trying to fix it. Perhaps you can add a small parameter on your new template, to minimize talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  I tried that but it looked messy. Feel free to do it yourself if you can. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really know how, and with that huge FAQ there, cleaning up the talk page isn't a priority :-) Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a final result on this? Stifle (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what everyone following the Democratic nomination battle is asking? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content

The folks at this central and highly contentious policy page are, I think, coming around to the conclusion that it has serious problems. This concerns the policing of NFC and the ways in which the wording of the criteria—especially the interrelated Criteria 8, 3a and 1—are interpreted. Such policing has the potential to erupt into vicious disputes, and the use of NFC has external legal implications.

We should expect ongoing evolution of the policy; this will have ramifications for nominators and reviewers at FAC and FAR/C.

Just two of the issues are HERE and HERE. TONY (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue of biographies

One of the important aspects of a FA is its stability. However, many living people can do some things that would radically alter the bio page. A death, for instance, can radically change a page. Should this be taken into consideration for such reviews? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See the definition of stability at WP:WIAFA; it is often misunderstood and misapplied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And when someone, like Obama, has a political change, edit wars happen. I know what stability means. I just mean that we should remember that such pages will become unstable very fast. If, say, the President of Wakawholostan decided to say "People with blue eyes should be killed", that page would probably end up in an edit war. Does this make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the key point is that if an edit war starts on an FA, the issue should be taken to dispute resolution rather than FAR. DR is better equipped than we are to deal with the conflict. DR, given that it is a multi-step process which moves through several levels (negotiation->mediation->arbitration), will resolve the problem without the need to begin a tangential or alternative process at FAR. Only at the end of DR, once a stable version of the article is agreed or imposed, should the article be brought here if it still has issues. But these issues will not be stability: they will be comprehensiveness, or prose, or image use, or whatever. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your idea and I agree, but I am talking about preemptively. How do we address concerns during an FAR about potential controversial issues or complete changes that may happen with such an important event? Should we point out such areas and warn editors? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing nomination

Whosy-whatsy-where? Did I see something Tub the other day, mature part of the list? Where is it? TONY (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tale of a Tub? See Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Marskell made the correct decision in closing this, as rightly or wrongly, consensus was to remove. Feck. But given this, should we go for "Tale of the Tub 3: The Return of Geogre"? Will the o/s issues be resolved? I hope so, a model article like this deserves work to be saved. There are issues, but I don't think the article will suffer by their removal. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Geogre was aware that the FAR restarted User:Geogre/Talk archive 27#Notification of FAR on A Tale of a Tub. He chose not to participate. I don't think he wishes to participate further. DrKiernan (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but that's beside the point, and there were plenty gathered to voice their openion. Broadly, FAR as a process is criticised in a wide number of venues. Yet it continues, but the people taking the brunt of the heat are "proxys", left open with no support. Marskell has written 12 FAs, and I think the way he is being taken for granted, we could loose him. If I was him I'd leave, given this mess. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For my part, my openion is that the article is so nunanced that only a specialist or the origional author can confidently tie back the statements to the correct sources. And I have a pretty lousy local liabary. Ceoil (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Marskell was left hung out to dry here; on maybe the most entrenched and bitter FAR to date. Raul, you promised to step in as a final voice but did not. I would expect a more hands on approach, and am dissapointed that so much weight was displaced. Ceoil (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your comments of the 19th, I had access to Ehrenpreis and Elias, and many other sources on Swift, but I'm not inclined to involve myself heavily in contentious subjects unless I feel very strongly about something. Editors who start a FAR war risk shooting themselves in the foot. If they frighten off people who might help the article and block attempts at improvement, their actions work towards removal. DrKiernan (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

April 21

Monarchy of the United Kingdom is on the mainpage on April 21 for Queen Elizabeth's birthday; it's an old Emsworth FA, in case anyone has time to do some cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Choosing that to feature on the mainpage wasn't exactly a great idea, given it's current state. LuciferMorgan (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps ping Raul about this? He delayed John Day's appearance on the mainpage for a bit until it received a facelift. BuddingJournalist 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul gets enough pings about the mainpage, and he just juggled them all because someone requested this article be put on the mainpage for the Queen's birthday (yep :-); maybe someone will fix it while it's there. If not, it will come to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) and Ceoil (talk · contribs) have already done some work, and I pinged DrKiernan (talk · contribs) last night; hopefully, with the patchup, it can get by. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And now, PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) has been in there for a couple hours, and it's looking much better. If anyone else can help, it may be able to avoid FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice tuneup, Peter; will this need to come to FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! As for FAR, it still needs a lot of work (mainly referencing), but I'll work on it this week. I'll wait until it's off the main page and go from there. PeterSymonds | talk 07:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 2b

I raised an issue I first saw on Action potential in a thread at FAC. When I first revisited Action potential, I initially thought it had been dramatically reduced and reorganized with the External links addressed; when I realized it had a TOClimit on, and removed the limit, the sections that could be better rationalized (lots of short sections, text that might benefit from summary style) and the External links issues were again apparent. Reviewers should be aware when a limit is artificially set, hiding part of the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a fundamental change in the Featured List process

Consensus is being tested concerning a proposal to establish a directorate (possibly two of the regular reviewers) as part of a program to improve the FLC process. Input is welcome. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Should_we_have_a_FL_director.3F TONY (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)