Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 3 June 2009

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

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

• WT:FAC

RFC to make Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism a guideline

Please make your thoughts known here about whether or not we should elevate Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism to a guideline. Thanks. `Awadewit (talk)

Truce term

Hi. I would like this article to go for FAC at some point but am really struggling with any sources from other cultures. I have asked around on other wikis and occasionally people tell me what they used as children but no sources! There may not be any as it is a very obscure subject. Does the fact that this article is based entirely on sources from the English speaking world make FA impossible?Fainites scribs 08:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on how you define the scope of the article. "Truce terms in English culture" or similar would surely be perfectly OK at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I can easily define the content as that but it makes a rather clumsy title. Do you think the title needs to be changed or can I just define it in the lead? (The trouble is, I'm sure all cultures have them, humans being humans, and I have some knowledge of some - but no sources and little prospect of getting them.)Fainites scribs 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the title would need to be changed to reflect the restricted scope, but others may have a different view. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I think you're right. Fainites scribs 16:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not ask for help in relevant wiki projects? Religious, national etc. ϢereSpielChequers 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done that (though by no means all yet). I get personal recollections but no sources. I have evidence therefore that truce terms are used in other European countries but no sources nor any evidence that sources exist, and as yet no evidence that they are used in non-European countries, apart from Japan where they use variants of the American "time-out".Fainites scribs 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• What about in S&M? In sado-masochist games there are "truce terms" where one partner lets the other know that the game is over and to stop the play. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a "safeword". Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreign-language dictionaries yield some results; searching for "pax", for instance, gives French "pouce", Russian "чур-чура", etc. But that doesn't give you the same kind of folkloric analysis as contained in the rest of your article. Lesgles (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lesgles. I've had some discussions about these two on foreign wikis and projects. There is a paucity of sources but there do seem to be european aswell as english speaking culture truce terms with some but not extemsive sources. No luck at all with non-european.Fainites scribs 07:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

different pages

I was curious, as to why FAC and FAR are seperate pages, if the two are being judged by the same standard, surely one process should fit all, or am I missing something? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that the process is subtly different; an FAC is someone who's worked on the article "defending" it from assorted critics; for an FAR, the original contributors may have long gone, so the question-and-answer format of FAC isn't necessarily appropriate. – iridescent 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In practice, FAR is not held to the same standard as FAC, about GA standard roughly, except mostly when the nominator doesn't like the author of the FA and is intent on bringing them down YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet another area of Misplaced Pages where standards need to be raised? Agh! Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

or harmonised? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what YellowMonkey is trying to say is that FAR's attitude and process is geared towards retaining bronze stars, while FAC is the process of getting one (and is much easier to fail). With FAR you have to notify parties of the review and the first phase attempts to fix the article rather than outright delisting. For that reason it would be a poor idea to try and mash FAC and FAR together. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the double standard - especially when it is acknowledged that many old FAs would now fail GA? --Philcha (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Because an article that goes through FAR and stays an FA is more valuable than just summarily delisting articles that don't meet quality. Sometimes it takes the threat of delisting to mobilize people to save an article. I would say that's more worthwhile than just casting everything aside. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree with Yellowmonkey's comment above that "FAR is not held to the same standard as FAC, about GA standard roughly"? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it has a significantly diffeent effect on morale to refuse a group of editors FA status rather than take away FA status when they already have it. I think because it is so difficult to undo a promotion, FAC need to be done right, and as of late I think they have not been given sufficient time to be considered properly, some recently promoted candidates are not even up for a week, and have been stalled mid-discussion. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be really blunt - requiring new nominators for FA to jump through hoops (e.g. MOS:CREEP) which editors with dozens of bronze stars for older FAs have not had to endure looks corrupt. --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Philcha; not only does it look corrupt, it is corruupt. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion may need to move to WT:FAR. I doubt anyone is suggesting that FAC lower its standards, and if standards should be raised at FAR, well, the discussion ought to take place over there. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the FA process a way to reward editors or a means to improve the encylopedia? If the former, then applying differing standards is certainly unfair, if the motivation is the latter then it encourages editors to improve articles without demoralising others, which in my opinion improves WP. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What are we even discussing here? I'm confused. FAC and FAR are different pages because they have different audiences. There is some cross-over, but not a heck of a lot. As to the standards... communities of practice change as the community changes. There is never the same ensemble of people working on an FAC or FAR. In theory, the standards are applied evenly, but I wouldn't be surprised to find variances within individual pages that are on the list right at this moment. We all do the best we can with the current community of writers and reviewers. --Laser brain (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. It's been suggested that articles passed at FAR would in reality struggle to achieve GA. The "different audiences" are irrelevant, the same standards ought to be applied. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See Ahmedabad. Survived FAR mid-2008 IIRC. And rail transport in India. Survived FAR mid-2007 after no comments on that FARC, although that example is dated. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that FAR has a different philosophy to FAC because of the longer time period for the article to be cleaned up, as David Fuchs was alluding to. I meant that the bar to which an FAR article has to improve to hold onto the star is not as high as for a new article at FAC to gain it. 1a is rarely checked there. The articles are mainly checked for the basics and don't really need to be much better than early-2007 standards to survive. I thought this was quite obvious. I think in one way it is the psychology of the status quo; people are less likely to want to take something away and downgrade something, compared to denying promotion to something of the same quality until it gets polished more. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This was not always the case; if this is happening now at FAR, it could be due to lack of reviewers or because articles are moving through faster now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it has always been the case. I've only been speeding up the FARs that have no attention and fall far short of GA standards. The other keeps are always basically by Joelr31, he tends to be more lenient and is satisfied earlier than I am YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with YellowMonkey, and would like to thank him for his pragmatic and definitely beneficial presence at FAR. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Wow, I can't believe that Philcha and Malleus think that raising both FA and GA standards at the same time, leaving some older FAs unqualified for the bronze star (and even perhaps for the mythical green dot), is somehow "corrupt". Corrupt? Really? The word "corrupt" implies that someone does it deliberately in order to somehow personally benefit from it... do you really believe that's the case? If so, then you are more cynical than I am, and that is saying something... Now, if you wanna say "unfair"... well... the word "fair" is basically undefinable, but it isn't completely bizarre to say that shifting standards is "unfair". I don't agree that it's unfair, but some could make that case. But "corrupt"...? Ling.Nut 05:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut misses the point. My complaint and, I think, Malleus' was that the 2-tier system is corrupt - all editors and all articles should be held to the same standards. --Philcha (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all boiling down to the "for the editors or the articles" debate again. Anyone who gets an article through FAC now can pretty much guarantee that it will be better in certain departments that any "old bronze star" articles, especially in referencing. The idea of corruption suggests that we have new nominators clamouring for an FA pass while the "old guard" sit there proudly showing off their hoarded old stars. This is an odd approach to the problems which have essentially been created by an incremental improvement in FA standards.

Getting back to the original question, FAC and FAR are and need to be different things. Newly passed articles should be nothing short of excellent, and people generally bring in articles that somewhat meet current standards. FAR articles generally have a great deal of problems, though the texts themselves tend to be pretty good and of some merit. Different skills are required. If I may offer an analogy: no one will buy a new car with problems. However, many will try to keep an older car tuned up and running to a decent standard, albeit not a perfect one. If you just junk all cars (FA articles) that have suffered a little in the passage of time then we (a) miss out on the opportunity of patching them up and putting them to good use and (b) just end up with a heap of scrap. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 06:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Folkboy's point. I'm going to digress, sorry, because I am intrigued by Philcha and Malleus's "corrupt" statement. Philcha said (quote) "the 2-tier system is corrupt - all editors and all articles should be held to the same standards." Which of the following are you suggesting:

1. New FAs/GAs should be held to the same standard as old FAs/GAs. That is, the standards should never change. This option is possible but counterproductive (it implies that progress is never good).
2. Old FAs/GAs should NOT be held to the same standard as new FAs/GAs. That is, no FA or GA should ever be delisted, even though the standards can change. This option is also possible, but would involve an MfD for FAR, and would furthermore mean that even the shittiest FA still wears the symbol of "Misplaced Pages's Best".
3. Old FAs should be held to the same standard as new FAs; old GAs should be held to the same standard as new GAs. That is, some FAs and GAs should be delisted, if they do not meet the current standard. This option is the goal we are seeking, I believe, albeit imperfectly.
4. FAs and GAs should be held to the same standard; there should be no difference between FA and GA. We can collapse them into one ranking. This option is a novel idea that the community would never support.
5. All current FAs should be held to one standard (that is, the current FA standard). All current GAs should be held to one standard (that is, the current GA standard). This option is also ideal, but unfortunately the emphasis on consensus and the volunteer make-up of Misplaced Pages make it impossible in practice (read the essay on my user page for further elaboration). Ling.Nut 08:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote for 6: FAs are not routinely delisted if/when the criteria change, unless the article has substantially changed since the FAC, but that older FAs are marked in some subtle way (a different color star, maybe?) so that newcomers to the process know not to take old FAs as "templates" for current work. The FA criteria haven't changed that much recently, and it's been a long time since these were considered to be our best articles. – iridescent 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, IIRC, 1a hasn't changed for a long time but back in 2006 it was never enfroced apart from by Tony, who could not do all FACs and even if he did he was outvoted about 8-1 usually. Back in those days, one-line supports and lax wikiporject voting, expecially among nation state wikiprojects was common, and rampant in the case of the latter. Some FACs/FARs had 100% support from members/diaspora/citizens of nation-state wikiprojects while all opposers were not from the said group, and I know one nation-state wikiproject where their members have a combined 100% support record, usually just "Strong support" without even looking for improvement opportunities. I don't think anyone will cop the paperwork of having more categories of stars, and if it was implemented, people would go and renovate their FAs and seek an upgrade to a more polished/updated star. It would be easier to simply remove those that are not renovated per the usual FAR. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for 3: "Old FAs should be held to the same standard as new FAs; old GAs should be held to the same standard as new GAs. That is, some FAs and GAs should be delisted, if they do not meet the current standard." In theory that's what's supposed to happen now, but we have plenty of comments above that FAR does not apply current FA standards. --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well kindly help out at FAR. It only takes 2 minutes to nom an ancient FAR if you are offended by it sharing the same status as a new FAC pass. I can think of a few FARs that are being partially improved and will probably scrape through by dragging its heels even though it would not pass at FAC or would be held up there until done properly. I could jump and and down about it on teh explicit articles, but then I wouldn't be able to close it and Joelr31 closes things more leniently than I do so it might be pointless if I cited all this stuff myself anyway. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely 3 is the only honest and rational choice? Although I'll admit I'm not clear on the distinction you're making between it and option 5, as I haven't yet read your essay. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think option three is pretty much a given. However, at the risk of proposing the already proposed and rejected...

Responses have consistently shown that most readers don't have any idea what the star means (if they notice it) and coloured ones would largely only serve as an internal rating system. I really think a little sentence in the top right corner (or next to the "from Misplaced Pages" line) stating "A (insert year here) featured article"' would not only be useful to editors, but readers too (perhaps inspiring more interest in what these "featured articles" are). The added bonus of the statement's simplistic appeal to readers is matched by the fact that an editor will know pretty much what those years' FA standards were like. Successful FARs could renew the year in the banner. Am I talking sense here? Those usability findings really showed that we've got to explain things better. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 05:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether the 50% (or whatever %) of people who renovate their articles without being asked would go and pile up their self-polished articles so that they could get "upgrade-validated". That could just overload the system YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So it's an idea, but one which could be spoilt by vanity? Although, I'm not too sure that would happen as I can't imagine current standards being stepped up much further... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 05:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if it does potentially strain the system by prompting a flood, surely "it would encourage people to improve articles" is still a good thing? – iridescent 11:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

enforcing the FA criteria does force people to work to improve articles. But inspecting the articles that aren't worked on are easier and more efficient to begin with than being swamped with a bunch of almost-modern-FA quality article being improved. for instance, FAs on current sportspeople like Harbhajan Singh I could just nom it for upgrading after updating it after every tournament and people would spend 1 hour to check whether I fixed it properly. If consistency of standards is the main priortym, it's easier to simply get rid of those that are not updated or otherwise brought up to speed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think YellowMonkey's argument is that it might make people focus more of their time on an article which is already substantially good. I very much empathise with the view that GA to FA takes as long as start/B/C to GA, even though the biggest jump in article quality is the latter progression. I think the fear is that the volunteer time and expertise could be put to better use than shining up perfectly good FAs.

A system which prevents/throttles this kind of activity would be needed—such as only upgrading if an FAR is needed. Otherwise, the FAR crew could just reject the review out of hand as unnecessary (the same way that bad FAC noms are quickly removed). I don't think that today's FAs could really head back down to FAR so easily, so abuse is prevented while FAs in need of true improvement might benefit from an editor keen to see the article listed at the current WP standards. Are there any obvious faults in this mechanism? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about people's time allocation to actual article editing, I think it would just mean that people would swamp FAR/FARenovate with articles that are not in most need of repair/delisting and as most people are focused on the really glaring problems first it wouldn't get checked out properly anyway, unless there is a drastic pick-up in activity. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I suggested that only those articles which clearly needed attention/renovation/delisting should be accepted, and if renovated, fixed, and retained as FAs then they could be listed as that year's FAs (giving the impression that the renovation marked a complete overhaul of the article). Mere expansions on perfectly fine FAs wouldn't really qualify for an FAR at the moment would they? Or have I misunderstood the system? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Expansions of current FAs don't necessitate FARs under the current system, but people could just keep on sending current sportsmen to FAR every six months if the new developments are not added; certainly happens on GAs. But people might want to send their BLPs to FAR every six months so it can be validated as "cutting edge". As for "complete overhaul" FAR isn't currently held to FAC standards so it would end up in a pile of cheap stunts unless more people become hard-nosed. Geoffrey Boycott is currently getting hammered on FAC but if it was at FAR it wouldn't get hauled over for all the faults currently. Psychologically I also think people are less willing to insist on fixing the last 10% at FAR because they are hesitant about confiscating something from another, whereas at FAC they are simply waiting until the author does it properly before they hand over the star. I think a lot of people know this and do half-hearted clean-ups at FAR when they would never nominate similar articles at FAC until they are at a higher state, and that they play on the guilt of the FAR reviewers to drag their feet through the review. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the BLP problem, saying a certain year might imply it was out of date. That goes for a number of other topics too. Scrap that idea then.

The entanglement of emotions in difficult FARs is obviously holding some articles back from not only being delisted, but also being improved. Apart from telling the original author to grow up and get working or face a delist, there's not much you can do about that; it shall always be a problem. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 01:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FARC

speaking of the FARC theme, there are a few that need attention. Since people are complaining about accountability.....

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Mumbai/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Prostitution in China/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/William Monahan
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Opera (web browser)

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Images need reviewing

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Olympic Games/archive4 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Planescape: Torment/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Blue Dragon/archive1

In the page is a link to itself. Can someone help me fix it?--(NGG) 12:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's normal. Steve 13:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

En-dashes and image file corruption

Interest in en-dashes seems to be a consistent concern at FAC, so posting here. From 17 May until today, two illustrations at an existing featured article failed to display because an attempt to implement MoS compliance corrupted the filenames (which contained hyphens). The surprising thing is that this filename corruption remained uncorrected for so long at the article Hamlet. The problem was quite noticeable and prominent: redlinks appeared in place of these images and one of them was very high on the page. After correcting the problem, posting to article talk, and notifying the user who performed these edits am also posting here because this went unnoticed and unfixed for a week at Shakespeare's most famous play: one wonders how many other articles (featured or otherwise) may have been damaged in a similar manner. On my other account I caught similar problems at non-featured articles several months ago. Respectfully submitted, _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark 17:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

First, you smell bad and your points are stupid.

Second, ignore the first thing I said. That was for the Prince of Trollmark. Image names with endashes and emdashes are not required in file names for FAs. I've had misspelled and misnamed images in FACs, and ha ha I loaded a few of them. I'm not sure what the objection is. It sounds like whoever named the images did so with endashes and emdashes. Can you clarify? --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Hi, this is not really the place for this discussion; maintenance of FAs is outside the scope of this project. But, I guess this has happened as a result of careless use of semi-automated scripts and the editor not carefully checking the results before saving. Graham Colm 18:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And Shakespeare editors who know a lot about their subject but get lost when it comes to technical stuff. :) Wrad (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AWB or whatever that thing is continues to fix a grammatical adjustment in one of my FAs that does not need fixing. I think this was a zealous editor that did not see the hyphen was in a file name. --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Graham Colm 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we probably all suffer from time to time with over-zealous users of AWB in particular. Not a complaint against AWB, which I like and even use myself occasionally. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also probably a good idea to avoid hyphens and dashes in file names completely. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. CamelCase is the only sensible naming convention. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. Having just been amazed to find we have an article on CamelCase I've added a link. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: filenames, bear in mind that most of these images are hosted at Commons. That multilingual project is not going to stop using hyphens. It's like talking to the Tower of Babel over there. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark 18:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel that you're trying to teach me how to suck eggs. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(several ec's) The uploader put a hyphen within the filename at each image. By changing that hyphen to an en-dash within the code for the image display, the system looked for a different filename and turned up a redlink. Have also notified MoS talk; interest in en-dashes is strong at FAC, so after consulting a couple of people posted here at their advice. Please excuse the tardy reply; my connection is unusually slow today and it's difficult to get a word in edgewise. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark 18:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we've got the point Prince of Trollmark, but you're really preaching to the converted here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Even if those changes weren't inside an image title, that edit wouldn't be correctly implementing MOS: MOS says unspaced emdashes. Anyway, wholeheartedly agree with the main point—scripts are not foolproof, and eyeballing is necessary. Maralia (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections"???

Among the FA criteria, not surprisingly, is criterion 2b:

"appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;"

With this in mind, does the following line on the current page need fixing/removing, or am I missing something?

"Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)."

PL290 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This does not refer to the article, but to the discussion page for the FAC nomination. Graham Colm 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

A big THANK YOU to all of you who reviewed an article in the last week. I was able to close 12 nominations today :) Reviewers rock. Nominators rock. Everyone keep up the good work! Karanacs (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been pleasantly surprised lately at the abundance of reviews. The FAC urgents box is getting lonely. Good work, all! --Laser brain (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No kidding! The list is below 35 for the first time in months!! Thanks to all who contributed reviews, so more nominators can nominate! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Michel Platini

This article was nominated, transcluded onto WP:FAC, and then removed by the same editor who nominated it. It appears that the article won't pass (no references) but I'm not sure what to do in this situation. Mm40 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an incomplete nom, and that the FAC subpage was never actually created. I'd just remove the {{featured article candidates|... header from the article's talk page and leave a message to the nominator about it. Might want to also reinforce that FACs should be high-standard and point out the criteria. BuddingJournalist 14:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

links to Google Books

Hey, during copy editing a FAC I rmvd all the links to Google Books, because I thought I remembered all and sundry agreeing heartily that links to Google Books are a Very Bad Thing to have in a Misplaced Pages article. Was I wrong/delusional (yet again)? Ling.Nut (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They can be very practical in theory, leading directly to the relevant page and highlighting a cited passage, but they decay over time and require refreshing. That latter point I've heard as a reason not to use them. JN466 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall we have any clear policy on the Google Books, but their links' use is recommended at Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources/example_style#Electronic_equivalents. Yes, they occasionally decay when a book is shifted to a more strict copyright mode, or when some editions are combined, but in my experience, more then half of the links I've added few years back still work. I strongly suggest keeping such links, and even demanding them, as they are very useful; if they rot, they should be dealt with as any other rotten links - recovered when possible, removed when not. However, removing those links - which are extremly helpful for insta-verification - is (no offense and IMHO) akin to the v-word. I suggest that once we hopefully reach consensus that Google Book links are helpful, we can discuss where this should be clarified, policy wise, and how we can update the existing citation templates to work with them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I find GB links very useful. I don't think they're WP:COPYVIO in any way, as they are only links, and AFAIK are the product of a marketing agreement between GB and the publisher. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much of a problem with the links being included, but I do not want GoogleBooks links to be a requirement in an FA. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with her. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not? They are extremly useful. We should encourage the use of this great (and free) database. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Me three. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Why not link to project Gutenberg? or the Internet Archive? I think requiring people to link to a single project is not a good idea. Bibliographies are there for a reason. Awadewit (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any suggested making any online content link mandatory - I interpreted the original question as "are GB links forbidden?". Likewise IMO we should not exclude other online content links. --Philcha (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I just wanted to nip that issue in the bud. Process creep happens sometimes when a bunch of FAs within a short period have similar characteristics. I don't ever want it misunderstood that links to GB in some articles means they're required for all. --Moni3 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I thought someone said blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, and when you post links to Google Books it reveals personal info. Or something. Even if it doesn't, I think it's free advertising for Google books, which is kinda unsightly. But that's certainly not the Unforgivable sin. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Google's free, and it provides us with a useful tool, so why not advertise for it? :) It's kind of like saying that we shouldn't use GPS coordinates (advertisement for GPS and services like Google Maps) or list camera type for photos (advertisement for cameras). Anyway, can I presume that the GBooks links that were removed will be readded, and that some policy (WP:CITE?) will now have a mention that GBook links are ok to add to citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I share Awadewit and Moni3's concerns. Google Books is just one of several online providers of page views of published books, and should not be favored over any other. Process creep is also a real problem--many books do not have page views available on Google Book Search, and I don't think we want to head in a direction where reviewers will demand editors cite only books that are electronically accessible. (And if you don't see that as the likely outcome of the promotion of GBS links, I have some brilliant prose to sell you.) DocKino (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a person using the source linking to it for others' convenience. A lot data, eg sports statistics are available at different websites and if one person chooses to use CricketArchive instead of Cricinfo or vice versa I don't think that is advertising just because of the link. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't view it that way, either. What I'm concerned about is formally prioritizing one electronic resource, especially a commercial one, over others. And what I'm even more concerned about it the process creep promised in a line like this, from Misplaced Pages:Citing sources/example style#Electronic equivalents: "Eventually we can begin linking all book citations to their electronic equivalents." Can we, really? Should we? Must we? The slope from the presumption "we can" to the decree "you must" won't need much grease. DocKino (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is slightly different, I worry about too much usage of just searching Google books for information without striving to secure the entire work and understand the entire context of the author's arguments. While I'm not going to discourage links to Google Books, I wouldn't want to encourage them either. I'd rather see links to various non-profit sources of these works (such as British History Online or the Avalon Project or Project Gutenberg before Google or Amazon. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends very much what the book's subject and structure is. E.g. many books are compilations of papers, each of which is standalone; and even in books written in one piece by the same single author / team one can e.g. mine the chapter on arthropods and ignore the one on molluscs. OTOH a book on a large new theory may devote a few chapters to summarising and critiquing existing theories, and one has to be careful to distinguish between what is the author's theory and what is a summary of another one. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between Amazon and Google. I'd prefer to link to an open source archive (if possible, wikibooks or wikisource), but the bottom line is that we should link to the best archive, and in my experience, Google Print with its links to the page and highlighting of key phrases is currently the most user-friendly. Perhaps a compromise solution would be to develop some template or function, similar to how our links to ISBN work, that would tell the reader which online archives have this page and let them chose from it? My point is not that we should prioritize Google Print over other archives, my point is that we should encourage using the best online archive that currently exists. The bottom line, as mentioned by several editors, is that such links are helpful, both to editors and readers, and thus they are a good thing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lady Ealdgyth has a fair point that like googling with a certain bit of information you're looking for, just getting a snippet of a preview page may not give you all the info you need, especially if the previews cut out. (Of course, you can just delete cookies and the cache and then read the rest of the book that way, but some books just dont have the full text online, which might be necessary.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I started a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources/example style. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that our Harvard citation template works with external links (like Google): . Ling.Nut, I hope you'll find time to restore the links you removed (at least from my FAC article)... thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that we do not link to GB because the address is not static. Fine, but an inderect through the internet archive solves that problem. I think a link would be useful as it would reveal those who are working from actual books, vs. thoes who are gleaming a word or two from snippet view, and piecing together the rest. Further, although I do not have direct access myself, I do know a few eternal students, and I would very much like to see JSTOR articles hyperlinked. A far better resource than GB (at least for the areas I work in), if you are fortunate enough to have the avenues. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All links are affected by linkrot, Google Books in my years of experience is doing so-so with this - most links (75%?) that I've added few years back still work. PS. As far as I know, Google Book links are not compatible with Internet Archive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Very pragmatic, but I don't like it in principle. We should not be preferentially linking to a particular external web site across a broad scope of articles. The reason that there is a special ISBN follow-through link page is to allow the reader a choice in accessing further information about the book. (I believe there is a Misplaced Pages option/plug-in that allows the reader to bypass the intermediary page and go straight to Google Books or WorldCat or whatever. Not helpful for the Average Reader of course. Nor do all books have ISBNs.) I'm torn, because Google Books is just that useful, but I think the principle is paramount. In that vague conceptual notion of Misplaced Pages--a self-standing encyclopedia--the fact that it is a web site that can contain links to the WWW is incidental. Outriggr (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The crucial point here is that ISBNs don't allow us to link directly to a specific page. Google Book offers a single, relatively stable link linking directly to the cited page. If there would be an open content alternative, I'd say we should use it instead, since there isn't, we should use the best option remaining. And let's be frank - Google is not that evil, really :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the principle on which you object? If it's "We should not be preferentially linking to a particular external web site ...", we do it all the time - for academic journals. At least Google Books does not have monopoly rights over the content it presents, so editors are free to link to other sites that are similarly helpful. --Philcha (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I also do not understand this principle. Since Google Books is that useful, a link to content the reader will find useful (for verifying, or for further information) can hardly be described as problematic. The reader still has a choice to access further information about the book, since information about the book (Author, date, ISBN) can be found on the left-hand side of Google Books. I also prefer linking to JSTOR articles over no link at all. Although JSTOR requires a subscription (which most readers won't have access to), readers don't need a subscription to see the first page of the paper. There's often an abstract on that page which can verify the material in the Misplaced Pages article. Even though the fact that WP can contain links to the World Wide Web is incidental, making the content easier to find by including relevant links is a service to the reader, and shouldn't be discouraged. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I also find Google Books useful for verifiability, and created {{Google books quote}} to provide easy links to source material in footnotes or during talk page discussions. It is amazing how it cuts through an argument if you not only tell other editors what the sources say, but let them see for themselves via a handy link.

OTOH, I wholeheartedly agree that use of Google Books should be entirely optional, and diversity of offwiki sourcing should be encouraged. In most cases the ISBN link does that job perfectly. Geometry guy 10:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good articles which are found wanting at FAC

Following this discussion on what to do when an article's GA status is brought into question at FAC, I have set up Category:Good articles in need of review to provide a mechanism for drawing GA editors' attention to problematic articles. The category is automatically listed by a bot, and changes can be watchlisted here. At the moment this list is transcluded onto the good article reassessment page.

To add an article, just place its talk page in the category. This feature is experimental, and comments and suggestions are most welcome. The intention is that GAs which are unsuccessful at FAC and have obvious weaknesses be added to the category for review by the GA process. Geometry guy 11:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be good to surface a more visible way of determining that someone has added this to that category? Like a template of some sort that automagically adds the talk page to the category and that provides a parameter for users to give some sort of reasoning as to why they are putting the article in that category. The template could be just inserted in a new talk page section rather than cluttering the top of talk pages. Would also help to contribute to discussion. TwilligToves (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like this? Geometry guy 11:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Thinking about this a little more, this strikes me as a bit of process creep. The whole idea of GA is that it's supposed to be lightweight, no? Therefore, if someone comes across an article that s/he feels doesn't meet the GA bar, shouldn't they just open a GAR? TwilligToves (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They should, and it isn't the intention of this to discourage that: please see the discussion that initiated this idea and the parallel thread at WT:GA. In particular, this mechanism is intended to provide an easy way for Sandy and Karanacs to notify the GA process when they close unsuccessful FACs of weak GAs. They surely don't have time to make multiple GAR nominations with all the work they do for the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 12:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct! It would be a bit uncomfortable for FAC closers to be put in the position of initiating multiple GARs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Empty FARCs

There are quite a few at WP:FAR. Most of them are pretty obvious but don't have much feedback YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it. Obvious keeps or obvious removes? :) --Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly obvious removes for no references but I removed some of them with only 1 nom + delist because they were so obvious and traffic is so low YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic diamond

GimmeBot has closed FA nomination synthetic diamond here and there in the midst of a review. Could someone have a look at that please.Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I was asking the reason for delisting. There was no unasnwered doubt on the content or quality of this potential FA, and the reviewer was just gradually improving the presentation. Technically we can continue by renominating, but I'm sure the reviewer(s) would prefer to have their old comments back. Any advice ? Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't "delist", it just wasn't promoted. There was no consensus to promote. I saw two opposes and no supports. I suggest working with the reviewers to finish implementing their suggestions, then renominate. The long review page (and two opposes) turns off other reviewers. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: (i) what would you say if I renominate the article now and we continue the review (i.e. are there limits on successive renominations ?) (ii) FA is all about quality of the article; how about quality of the review comments ? What I mean is that anyone who "opposes" FA should provide a valid reason, which should be judged by a third party; am I missing something ? Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take a few weeks to work with reviewers on finishing up issues raised, and bring it back in a few weeks; other articles also need a shot at increasingly limited reviewer time. Carrying FACs too long bogs down the page; peer review is a better venue for continuing work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again I find myself wondering why FACs keep getting closed during the midst of ongoing discussion. Everything I had written up to that point, both on the FAC page and in my edit summaries (see this as an example) very clearly indicated that I was going through the entire article and that I wasn't done. Aye, Dabomb is right in that there wasn't consensus to promote, but that's only because the only person who actually looked at the content of the article (me) wasn't finished! Instead of making these decisions arbitrarily, perhaps the FAC delegates could actually discuss the matter with the reviewers or, at the very least, read through all of the material to make sure that all the involved parties seem to be "done", since it doesn't seem like that happened here (nor did it happen at GRB 970508, nor 243 Ida, nor Euclidean algorithm). If these obviously premature closings occur as an attempt to satisfy the burning hunger to produce featured content as quickly as possible, please stop, and consider reading my first thought. In any case, please reopen the Synthetic diamond FAC. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary for the article to be at FAC for a reviewer to finish working with the nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cryptic here. The atmosphere at FAC has become increasingly hostile over recent months due to what appears to be a race to get the nomination closed. Surely we can all agree that reviewers are few and far between these days, but it is a volunteer project after all; no-one's required to participate. Ideally we should be working together to produce quality content, not preparing for battle and proclaiming "Every man for himself"... –Juliancolton |  04:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should be working together to produce quality content, but that can happen off-FAC, at peer review, at article talk, any number of places. There are greater problems when the FAC page hits 60 to 70 open reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, those other venues are toothless, and are even more deprived of participants than FAC is. I'm not by any means suggesting that FAC should be used as a substitute for peer review, but it just seems detrimental to archive nominations so quickly. –Juliancolton |  04:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominations are not being archived quickly; by keeping the page size down, we've actually been letting them run longer than they could several years ago (so folks got used to that, and want increasingly more time ... FAC should not be used as peer review). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about a set time limit: say, perhaps, 3 weeks (excluding of course obviously premature candidates)? That would resolve quite a few issues that have driven off reviewers in the past. –Juliancolton |  04:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

More than two weeks, and two opposes, is not a quick close; it's a normal closing. The nominator has engaged reviewers and has plenty to work on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If there were two outstanding opposes with no effort to address the issues at hand, then I would agree; but to archive the nomination in the middle of a productive collaboration seems a tad arbitrary. –Juliancolton |  05:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate these *&! colons. At some point, we do need to say that FAC is a forum for recognizing FAs; not producing them. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, FAC could be run in a format similar to that of FARC, with a review period and a subsequent voting period. –Juliancolton |  05:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not gonna take sides here; I'm gonna say that we've been kicking this poor dog of a thread over and over and over again for months upon months. . If we leave FACs in too long, everything gets clogged up. If we close them quickly, nominators get pissed. We've had proposal upon proposal upon proposal; I personally have made enough proposals to terrorize and engulf a small village in Wales. None has ever been accepted; I'm not really sure that any proposal is acceptable to a majority of FAC folks. FAC is often(perhaps always) undermanned. From what I hear, PR is undermanned too (I haven't been there much). Yes "FAC shouldn't be PR", but from my extremely limited observations, PR isn't always PR. Even at its best, the reviews at PR are not (or seldom?) as rigorous as those at FAC. But the quality of the reviews at FAC is highly variable as well. I'm starting to think that there's no hope of really finding any solution where PR does PR and FAC does FAC. It's a pipe dream. The only answer is 100 more highly committed, highly skilled reviewers... or OK may 20 more (ten apiece for FAC and PR). Without that, all I see is an endless arc of yammering and pointless talk from here to eternity. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the answer to many of the problems at FAC is often more dedicated, skilled reviewers. However, what about adding a timeline guideline that would give nominators a clearer picture of when they can expect an archive? Say, "In general, if no consensus has been reached within three weeks , the nomination will be archived. Contributors are encouraged to continue working on resolving issues that arose during the nomination process." The "In general" is to give leeway to Raul/Sandy/Karanacs so that if a nomination is close to achieving consensus (perhaps say a copyedit has been undertaken and the two outstanding opposes just have to revisit) then they can delay archiving. TwilligToves (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I was the one who closed the review, let me give my take on this. The nomination had been up for over two weeks. In that time period, it garnered no support or neutral commentary but had gotten two opposes. I did note that the nominator was diligently working on fixing the problems identified, and that almost all of those on the page had been addressed; however, I also noted that Cryptic had not finished the review yet, so there would likely be more issues to come. It looked to me as if the nomination had turned into more of a peer review, and since Cryptic and the nominator were already working well together I thought it best to let them continue to do so outside of FAC. I couldn't see leaving the nom open another week to finish fixing Cryptic's concerns, and then hoping that the length of it would not scare off other reviewers so that there could be supports after that. I hope to see the article back at FAC in a few weeks, with all of Cryptic's concerns addressed; at that point it will likely be in better shape to gain support. Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<essay>

I respect Kara's intentions and decision-making, and of course I would be happy to continue working with NIMS/Materialscientist outside of FAC. However, upon mulling this over, I've come to the conclusion that the real problem is that there is a fundamental incompatibility between, as LingNut put it, "FAC is a forum for identifying FAs, not producing them" and WP:FAC's "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". If I were to try to follow the first guideline, I would be forced to simply write "Oppose. Prose needs tweaking." but not write out individual concerns, which would violate the second guideline. If I were to try to follow the second guideline by listing out my concerns, I would apparently be violating the first guideline. I've seen examples of both extremes: This for the first guideline; the closure of Synthetic diamond for the second.

Since these two guidelines are incompatible, only one of them can be correct. Let us assume that the first, "FAC is a forum for identifying FAs, not producing them," is correct (I realize that neither Kara nor Sandy have stated or endorsed this rule of thumb in this discussion, but it seems to encapsulate their points of view quite well). The nominator would have to, in order to avoid an oppose from me or any other line-by-line reviewer, essentially predict which FAC reviewers will be reading through the article and work with them before the FAC actually happens. Neither authors nor reviewers should be obligated to work in such a way. It appears that this guideline is false and that the second guideline is correct.

However, there is one other problem at hand: At the FACs for Euclidean algorithm, 243 Ida, and Synthetic diamond, I did line-by-line reviews. In all three cases, the FACs were closed before I was finished going through the articles. For the first two, my review was listed under a "Comment"; those two passed. For the third, my review was listed under an "Oppose"; that one failed. To some, this may appear to be a mere coincidence, but considering that there is often only one reviewer who takes the plunge and really picks apart the article (although this wasn't the case for Euclidean algorithm), I remain unconvinced.

All that having been said, there are some questions that need answering: How can editors do their line-by-line reviews without being interrupted? How can such line-by-line reviewers list their comments without necessarily endorsing or opposing the article's promotion? The answer that Kara and Sandy seem to advocate is a peer review outside of the FAC. However:

• The peer review with the FAC reviewer can only occur after the FAC has already started.
• It is both inconvenient and illogical to have two FACs and one peer review page created simply because of one reviewer's compulsive need to go through the article line-by-line.
• The FAC for Gamma-ray burst spanned approximately a month and a half, during which time very high-quality work was being produced by all of the involved parties. Best of all, neither Misplaced Pages nor the world itself exploded as a result.

Finally, I would like to invoke one of the most useful phrases ever written: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it."

All that having been said, I have come to one conclusion: Forget about closing FACs early. Forget about opening peer review pages when reviews are already in progress. Forget about inconveniencing everyone for the sake of "unclogging" the FAC process. If there is ongoing discussion at an FAC which will result in improvements being made to the article, let that discussion continue in its original forum for as long as is required. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

</essay>

Hear, hear. –Juliancolton |  15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a contradiction that can only be overcome with experience. This is particularly vexing for newcomers who have limited involvement in witnessing the FAC process, so I understand MaterialScientist's frustration. I think almost everyone has had at least one article that has had to be archived to start it again. It is difficult not to see it as a failure. We should do our best to change any culture of viewing archived nominations as failures. However, it is unreasonable to expect reviewers to give line-by-line criticisms in all nominations, and FAC should not be treated at peer review. You're willing to give very detailed reviews, which is very commendable, but taxing to expect it of all reviewers. I'm not sure what the happy medium is. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on something that has been mentioned a few times here, but Peer Review isn't useless. I find it very helpful and get at least one independant, helpful review with each PR I start. I think more folks need to see PR as a step in the process towards FAC, not as a "useless" bit of nothing they can avoid. Another thing, if you're going to do a line-by-line review, that's really better taken place on the talk page of the article, whether before or during the FAC. As a reviewer, I find a long huge FAC page to be offputting. I'd rather see detailed point by point discussions take place on the talk page, especially when there is a lot of back and forth between the nominator and the commentor. As a nominator, my goal is to get my article ready before I bring it to FAC, but that's my goal. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion with other nominators, but I think it's best to agree to disagree, and understand that not everyone shares everyone else's opinion. The FAC delegates have to balance a number of different viewpoints on the process. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer Cryptic's question, state your oppose and summarize the rationale on the FAC with some examples, and take your line-by-line review to the article talk page, where it can continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic diamond 2

Forgive me, I am newcomer here, I do not know the past debates and do not want to criticize anyone. I am just a professional scientist dedicated to[REDACTED] who wants to make it better. What I wanted from the above thread is to get answers what have I done wrong and what should I do to make things better. I haven't got those and therefore starting a new thread asking the same questions. I was given answers, but let me explain why I don't understand them:

• My article is by no means ideal. it raised questions, but they were all minor technical, and I answered them all. Delisting from FAR does mean rejection to me. How could I make it better ?
• I understand it took time to raise and answer those questions, but I replied ASAP. What could I do better in this regard ?
• It was suggested that the review process can be finished aside of FA project. Forgive my rudeness, I am grateful to all referees, especially to Cryptic C62, but I feel they took the assignment (of reviewing my article) because they wanted to help[REDACTED] and the FA process, not because they were eager to read my article (yes, science is often boring !). In other words, this review process is the part of FA system, and that yields the best WP articles. How can I recreate it outside FA ? Best regards. Materialscientist (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Start a peer review, and ask the editors who commented on the FAC to continue listing their concerns at the peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Materialscientist, please understand that because wiki is a volunteer venture, a closed FAC here in no way resembles the peer review or "rejection" one may receive when submitting to a professional journal. A closed FAC is merely a chance to come back in a few weeks, better prepared, after working with the objectors on the original FAC, usually with quicker results than letting the FAC stagnate at the bottom of the page, where it might not attract further attention, would yield. Unlike a professional journal, we rely on volunteers; we must keep the page manageable to optimize the time of those volunteers. (I'm not in favor of any constraints, such as those mentioned above, on the FAC page, because every FAC is different, and the closers try to do what is in the best interest of the article.) Tips for getting an effective peer review can be found at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. We hope to see you back in a few weeks, with a successful outcome! SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Minimum size for an FA?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but a quick look through the archives shows nothing. I've noticed several FA nominations with less than 1000 words in the last few weeks, and personally I think that is simply too short for a featured article. Of course 1(b) of the criteria states that an FA should be "comprehensive," but I think we should complement this with a requirement that an FA have at least 1500 words of readable prose (the DYK Checker can be used to count this quickly). Generally speaking, articles shorter than this simply do not represent Misplaced Pages's best work, even if they do technically pass the criteria.

As an (extreme) example of the following, consider if I wrote an article on Jaguars in Antarctica. The article would simply read: "There are no jaguars in Antarctica." Assuming I could find some reliable sources for this, the article would technically pass all of the criteria (if it didn't get speedily deleted).

The other problem with FACs <1500 words is that it's often hard for a reviewer to know what he/she doesn't know. After reading a very short candidate, I generally find myself thinking "That's it?" and I often have a few specific questions, but it's hard to know what to ask. Furthermore, authors often respond to queries with "sources don't say," so it's very challenging for a reviewer to figure out how to suggest fixing the article. On the other hand, a firm requirement of 1500 words would ensure that the initial author produces a fairly comprehensive piece before submitting to FAC. Cool3 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)